Are the restrictions on the SNS’s ability to transfer treasury funds necessary?
I believe in DAO’s having the ability to add this restriction but I do not see the point of having this restriction enforced at the protocol level of ICP. If a DAO goes under a 51% attack the treasury will get drained no matter what restriction you place on the withdrawal limits.
At the protocol level this should be an option that projects can enable as a show of good faith but this creates in my view an over reaching government within the SNS launchpad. As this restriction does not remove the threat of treasuries getting drained but it adds hurdles for projects such as Waterneuron whom wish to produce the largest yield for their protocol via staking all the treasury into a 8 year neuron.
Maybe a possible solution could be the restriction applies when transferring to wallets but if it is going to a canister controlled neuron within the daos control then the transfer limit is either fully removed and or increased to 50% of the xdr value of the treasury.
I hope this sparks conversation on the responsibility of investors to read and understand the projects going through the sns launchpad. It is not the responsibility of the ICP protocol to protect investors whom do not care to read and or understand what they are investing into.
Perhaps all SNS could start with the current restrictions by default, but each SNS could make proposals that change their parameters. That way the SNS decides the restrictions they want for their own community.
I also like the idea of having different restrictions on transfers from an SNS controlled canister to other SNS controlled canisters than would be enforced on transfers outside the SNS.
I think they are necessary. SNSs benefit from an environment that is not scamville, and the wider ICP community is protected from a tarnished reputation. It is a middle ground that works for all in the ecosystem. Dev teams may still wield great power in some SNSs, and allowing treasury transfers in an uncontrolled manner would pause risks.
The issue that I am seeing is if an entity has accumulated the threshold of vp to drain a treasury they will be able to drain it even with these restrictions. It doesn’t protect people but just delays the bad actor.
My view on a possible middle ground would be to have these restrictions on transfers to wallets/neurons that are not in the registered control of the dao itself.
If a project decides to stake all the treasury into a neuron that is registered and controlled by the dao then the restriction should not apply as the treasury is remaining within the control of the dao itself.
I agree, I think the restriction is mainly great to prevent transfers that take the treasury out of the control of the DAO itself.
If there were a middle ground where you can transfer the treasury to wallets, and or neurons that are registered and controlled by the dao with no restrictions it would improve the flexibility of daos growth.
I believe that this would however still be a bypass of the oversight on treasury transfers by NNS. So still as good as saying that NNS should not oversight treasury transfers. Once they are in the DAO controlled neuron, they can be moved elsewhere by vote in the SNS DAO, which could have a large influence from a dev team. Unless there is a restriction that treasury funds can only ever be moved to DAO controlled neurons.