SNS Foundation Named Neurons (Call to Action)

Surely you recognize the irony given you & @borovan are trying to twist this into some “anti foundation narrative” to create drama & detract from the root of this topic - being the inspiration & creation of new named neurons.

It’s starting to seem like you have an agenda given you’re unwilling to engage in conversation, but rather make assertions & deflect when you’re responded to.

1 Like

I’m not even active on the ICP Maximalist Telegram group, and I didn’t even know Cedric back then, what evidence do you have other than “yeah there was a lot of FUD and I think you somehow were behind it”.

For one thing, if Code & State was that good at organizing a community we’d have a lot more engagement on our channels than we do now, we get like a couple comments per week on our Whatsapp groups right now (we’re working on it). Frankly, we wouldn’t even have even had the reach required to pull off what you’re accusing us of if we had wanted to.

It sounds like the spam proposal just sparked a bunch of trolls, but who cares? There’s always trolls, they accomplish nothing but making noise. Ignore them, you’re building something awesome!

If there was anyone fanning the flames it was probably one of the many ICP trolls who are active on Twitter, or maybe an industry rival like FTX was still playing games back then.

Anyways, this is a baseless accusation, Code & State has not and would never troll Dom on some random group chat. That’s ridiculous!

1 Like

It was an organised effort to secure the voting power of the seed investors, and for the most part it worked. Right now Arthur has something crazy like 5-10% of the vote.

I saw through the BS.

Last I seen, Arthur’s Neuron had 6%, while Synapse had 4%.

Arthur’s 6% of followee voting power was then assigned as a followee to the Synapse neuron (Im unaware if this is still the case at present day).

Regardless, as stated abundantly within this thread, Arthur is not a member of Code&State, so I’m not sure where the relevance is.

As a side note, I find it beyond ironic that you’re okay with DFINITY self-assigning 100% of voting power to themselves upon Genesis - and we should simply accept it because people “choose” to follow them.

Yet you find issue in seed investors knowingly choosing to allocate voting power to Arthur’s Neuron?

It seems like you just don’t want any power to slip from DFINITYs grasps.

omg lately many DFINITY employees have been sharing my ICP CED farming on twitter - that must mean we work together!

1 Like

So in essence, you’re telling me you agree & resonate with my proposal to reset followees, given the monopolized state of Named Neurons at the time of introduction of the system?

I should have just explained it like this to you to begin with. Sucks that every time I phrase it like that, Im “attacking” the network though.

ICDevs - They don’t vote against the foundation, they just have to be careful since they are a non-profit based in the USA so they are forced to vote no on SNS proposals. I personally vote yes on NNS proposals. @skilesare makes sure he gives people time to vote to adopt before the neuron has to vote no. Austin also works for Orygin, which to my understanding has an excellent relationship with the foundation.

Synapse - They still have some DFINITY staff members I believe, and no one from Code & State has any involvement. @wpb and I have even gotten into public disagreements on this forum. There’s been some drama around Synapse, but I think that’s just because people feel strongly on the topics.

Arthur (could someone tag him I forgot his handle) - He helped me with the Ethos Proposal, which came of out a sub group in the Governance Working group that DFINITY hosts. Him and I get along but we don’t agree on everything, and I’ve told him before that I think he uses inflammatory language which isn’t helpful. He speaks for himself. I think he stopped being active, so his neuron is now just following the neuron and it doesn’t even direct much voting power anymore.

What future do you want for the NNS? If a few neurons gain a following and don’t vote exactly like DFINITY, isn’t that exactly what the NNS was created for and simply a sign that it’s beginning to gain community adoption?

The NNS is not DFINITY against the community, it’s DFINITY plus the community. We all want to see the NNS flourish and gradually diversify, hosting a wide range of participants. Making completely baseless accusations, rooted in paranoia and fear, is not helpful to DFINITY or anyone.

At the end of the day, we are all on the same side and want the same things:

  1. For ICP to flourish.
  2. For no one organization or person to be in control of the network.

Since a decentralized network has no value if it’s not actually decentralized, both goals must be met at the same time. A conspiracy to grab control of a decentralized network is an oxymoron, because by doing that you’d be destroying the value of what you took over since it would be centralized.

I doubt anyone is idiotic enough to attempt this, and again you have absolutely no evidence for the FUD you’re spreading.


This is ironic, considering this exact forum topic is in regards to other alternative contributors beginning to contribute to the governance of the IC.

To which you swiftly interjected this “power grab” conspiracy, obviously in attempt to scare people from engaging with this concept (at a time when there wasn’t even anybody indicating interest - who are you accusing of the power grab…?).

Anybody reading this dialogue can see through your act of “pro-decentralization” - you just want the people you like to maintain absolute control.

Yes, I worked with Arthur on the Ethos Proposal. Those tweet were from December 2022, I didn’t even start working for Code & State until January 2023. The Ethos proposal had nothing to do with Code & State or Cedric.

Arthur and I were working on the Ethos proposal, which was an assignment that came out of the Governance Working group which DFINITY hosts. I originated the idea, and Arthur helped be with editing and and sharing on Twitter since he had more followers than me.

I’m proud of the work I did on that proposal, it was an honest attempt to help bolster more trust in the NNS. The proposal was rejected though, so the NNS spoke and I dropped the issue.

What’s this “CED” thing mean"

Do you even realize how silly this sounds?

Literally nobody other than DFINITY & CodeGov vote on code based topics.

Nobody else would “benefit” in voting power other than existing & newly encouraged Code Contributing Named Neurons.

If your conspiracy held true, don’t you think people would be contributing to code in preparation for when the flood gates of codebase voting power does open?

You’re presenting false narratives as fact & your delusion is beginning to get embarassing. You’re knowledgeably providing misinformation to anyone reading this.

I have absolutely zero connection, relationship, or anything else with Code&State.


Code & State has never pushed any anti-foundation narratives, there’s no motives, evidence, or basis for that claim. Why would that even make sense? We all need DFINITY to keep building the protocol, hurting DFINITY would be hurting everyone.

This ecosystem is very small, everyone knows everyone. Where you see some broad organized conspiracy, it’s just a bunch of independent actors who happen to know each other because they are all active within the same small Web3 niche.

Again, happy to clear the air on a private phone call or even a public Twitter Space. We’ve got nothing to hide, and we’re all on the same side and wanting to see ICP succeed!


I think the issue is that Dfinity can develop far more than just the protocol. There is no need to put people in little boxes. IC is quite possibly greatest innovation since internet. It exists because of Dfinity. Just let everyone build whatever they can and the whole community will benefit.


I don’t think anybody is trying to detract from that at all within this thread.

This thread started with what was intended to bring the need for more contributors to light. Nowhere in this thread has it been indicated that DFINITY should stop what they’re doing.

Please stop you’re going to get this thread shut down (rather than moderated) by @diegop too :flushed:

Imagine if Cat was given this leniency😳 A menace to society!

Unfortunately we just get Ivan nowadays :sob:

I don’t know, he just keeps saying it to me when I make good points🤷🏻‍♂️

So I am now a CED farmer :nerd_face::fishing_pole_and_fish:

This will happen organically in 3-4 years. Once projects on the IC start generating revenue, it will be in their interest to monitor the changes which may break them. IC projects currently have to focus on becoming profitable, providing value to users & inventing things. They can’t spend resources on auditing IC code changes before that.
Otherwise… The code NNS governs is a product of hundreds of specialists in their field. If we assign one person per SNS who can understand all that to the last intricate detail. These geniuses (if they can be found at all) will cost a lot and will need to have a large stake or be employed by someone with a large stake. And after a year of hard work, their only product will be decentralization & security.
And if you have these guys, wouldn’t they contribute more to your DAO while working on your project


Yeah I basically agree.

This emerging industry on ICP has to develop, mature, and bring in revenue from outside industries. As that happens I think a lot of these other types of issues will clear up themselves over time.

1 Like

I’m surprised everyone has taken such an adversarial stance on this topic. To be quite honest, I thought more independent contributors to the Internet Computer was what we are striving for.

I’d agree that this is something that probably will occur naturally over time - but I don’t think that means we should be discouraging people from taking on that responsibility in the meantime.

I’d also agree everyone has a different level of expendable time available to commit to contributing to the IC, however, I don’t think these blanket statements are accurate or representative of everyone on the IC, let alone SNS Foundations who are typically working full-time on the IC.

Additionally, I’m not recommending any specific level of contribution - I think any new named neurons are a benefit, whether they’re simply voting on governance / sns topics, verifying replicas, or contributing to the codebase of the IC itself.

I think this is something that everyone should determine individually, - being the appropriate level of contribution from them - as again, this lays the groundwork for foundations to avert platform risk long term.

Obviously you won’t be able to immediately source world-class talent. But if SNS Foundations are trustworthy & talented enough to entrust hundreds of thousands of ICP with in exchange for their work, why are they not good enough to contribute to the NNS & IC itself? I would argue the SNS dApp they develop full-time is the “employer with a large stake”. I’d also argue they inherently have a large stake, being the dApp itself.

I thought decentralization & security was the goal? Is that not a meaningful byproduct of their work?