Thanks Lara, that all sounds good and I’m looking forward to what’s coming, particularly known neuron functionality for SNSs.
Almost, but not quite 
The crux of the idea is that when a new user joins a particular SNS (an SNS that has decided to adopt a DAO-controlled neuron), that user then has a 3rd option about how to approach voting:
- Vote manually
- Ask who the best neuron to follow is (usually the one that already has the most followers, which is therefore self-reinforcing, leading to undesirable centralisation)
- Donate your voting power (by following a DAO-controlled neuron) so that the actively voting members of the DAO determine how that VP is distributed to aid decentralisation
By instead moving this responsibility to a separate canister, governed by a separate/smaller group of people, you’re significantly reducing the number of people that can have a say in how the DAO should distribute VP that has been given up by users that don’t know (or have no preference) about who to follow. That may be a fine approach for some SNSs. I’m not suggesting a silver bullet (I think that’s where some wires have possibly been crossed). Ultimately, there’s no reason that any of these approaches need to be mutually exclusive of each other.
As an interesting case study, take the recent NNS grants for voting neurons elections. Would it have been reasonable to not allow the entire NNS to vote on which NNS reviewers should be regarded as preferential on specific topics? Would it have been preferential to instead hold a vote via a different governance mechanism, through a different canister, governed by a different much smaller set of people?
At the end of the day this thread is about requesting the functionality for an SNS to decide what to do for themselves in this respect. If they own a neuron, they should be able to manage it (including dissolving it). I’m looking forward to this funtionality arriving.
The WTN D-QUORUM neuron is c0b121b52cca921791b87350244029a9d128883e22576b528f2214489a1d3384
It is controlled by no other prinicipal than the WTN governance canister. There is no way for the DAO (or anyone) to manage and/or dissolve and disperse this neuron without a manage_SNS_controlled_neuron proposal.
This sounds like a nice timeline to me, thanks @Lara. I’d also like to thank the numerous people who have provided useful criticism, asked questions, shared ideas and shown their support and positive sentiment for this idea on numerous channels and DMs - including @sat, @rem.codes, @EnzoPlayer0ne, @1eo, @wpb, @Cris.MntYetti and various others who’s handles I’m not aware of on this forum.
You’ve all helped to flesh out some further details regarding setting a standardised set of principles that a D-QUORUM neuron should conform to. I’m aware of numerous individuals who are interested in setting up a D-QUORUM neuron on other SNSs, so a standardised set of principles to follow will be useful. I’ll plan to collate these and post them on a dedicated thread at some point soon.