Herein lies the problem. People are upset about draining the Neuron Fund, but the reason this happened is partly because there’s no liquidity in the ecosystem. But there’s no liquidity or strong ecosystem growth because Dfinity didn’t prioritise DeFi and instead chose AI hype. Ecosystem growth is powered by retail trading activity, and if you don’t have good apps then you’re not going to have the project growth expected or wanted, and you’ll just get grifters who want to rug the SNS. This is a Dfinity problem for not prioritising DeFi. Could have been solved with a proper grants programme targeted on DeFi years ago.
8 Likes
Ill get the details from Adam in am. He was up super early dealing w boom. I believe it was a proof of concept for an attack vector. Also yes, I imagine there was some fun had on his part but this is not a long term strategy.
Ddos isnt the right term though. Its more a UWC (useless wasting of cycles) im sure someone can think of a more interesting term but it isnt denying service like a Ddos.
Now i have the adele ddos song in my head… thx!
4 Likes
I think cycle drain is the proper words for it. Thank you for being supportive of Adam! I’m sure you’ll get him to come around.
Thank you both for everything you do for the community I know you both mean well!
2 Likes
- A prediction market (Kong Swap and maybe…nah that isn’t gonna happen)
What were you thinking about…?
ICPSwap?
The core idea behind DAOs is leadership with skin in the game..
Trusting an 1-anonymous 2-on the internet 3-with money is a completely new form of communication. The only evidence that needs to be shared in a proof-of-stake system is the locked assets. proving commitment. many SNSes leaders lack. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be this easy to kick them out from their own projects.
If you think Adam and Donna are attacking the IC, ask yourself: Why would they sabotage the ship they’re investing their money and time to build? And guess what? If they fail, they’re providing liquidity so you can sell. unlike many SNS leaders..
ICP ecosystem is an ECOSYSTEM A bad actor affects all networks, either directly by draining ICP through fake marketing allocations or salaries to dump on the market. I feel really stupid make 2x trading ICP within the ecosystem, only to see ICP’s value drop 50%. I know someone who was siphoning 7,000 ICP monthly (near NASA-level salary) from the community, or indirectly, by damaging the blockchain’s reputation When people see us getting drained, why would they trust ICP?
Pointing out bad actors doesn’t harm the ecosystem, it strengthens it. imo We’re lucky this stress test comes from internal players with growth plans in mind, not competitors.
It’s unrealistic to claim the world computer will be ready just four years after genesis.
If you believe in the world computer vision, you must embrace free market stress tests. not complain about it.
@wpb is an ICP expert, been here since genesis, but if he wants to have this much voting power over the NNS, he should have significant skin in the game. It shouldn’t all be delegated. The way I see it, if your voting power is misused, you won’t bear equal consequences because you didn’t buy them, which, in my opinion, is very anti-Web3.
Even the SNS designers included an age bonus to SNS equation to rewards governors with skin in the game , tying it to voting power.
i’m only fine with DFINITY holding the largest NNS voting power, not just because of their expertise, but because their assets are locked indefinitely. This ensures their decisions align with the network’s long-term interests.
@borovan may be wrong in some areas idk, but i’m sure from now on, anyone raising funds through SNS must either deliver a real DApp or come up with solid rug plan that would teach us a lesson, thereby making IC more resilient.
As Naval said, most crypto projects fail because founding teams get rich too early
i believe SNS have the potential to address this gap in crypto. SNS is so flexible and most advanced DAO.
This is the free market at play. I can’t wait to see who will try to buy out Adam and Donna or to see this voting power war happening on the NNS.
11 Likes
From my perspective, everything Adam did was simply taking advantage of the mechanisms exactly as the SNS was designed. If someone is selling tokens, it naturally implies they’re okay with someone else buying them. And if holding tokens gives you governance power, then whoever buys them gains that power — plain and simple.
This is a clear lesson that tying voting power solely to token ownership may not be the most effective or resilient governance mechanism.
If the project could be so easily taken over by a single individual who simply acquired tokens, it suggests that the original team wasn’t truly invested in their own project — at least not in terms of governance stake.
I’d love to see future systems incorporate a reputation-based layer alongside token-based voting — something that rewards long-term involvement and real contributions, not just financial power. At the same time, teams need to show stronger commitment to their own projects, not just launch and walk away. Governance should be earned, not bought.
13 Likes
Well put! I would add that staked tokens should not be transferable (it makes no sense to stake them in the first place if you can still split and transfer your stake). By default SNS neurons are transferable. SNS’ that are serious about governance and mitigating potential attacks should consider disabling neuron transferability using an SNS nervous system parameters proposal.
Additionally, you shouldn’t launch an SNS if you’re not at a stage in your development cycle where you’re actually able to deliver value to governance participants. If you’re not delivering value, the tokens won’t hold their value, and they will not do a sufficient job of securing the SNS and/or maintaining a suitable level of decentralisation.
Any SNS’ that covers the above should be fairly safe from governance attacks. Any that don’t, aren’t.
This is an impressive thread and clarifies a lot of information. Thank you.
I’m looking forward to seeing it this makes a difference. I hope it does.
Competition is good. I look forward to seeing what they come up with and how it will push both projects to improve and attract participants.
I agree.
This is sage advice. I’m impressed that you are willing to offer it to Adam so boldly. I hope he is willing to listen. I agree that you have been one of the most outspoken members of the community on why you think WTN is wrong both morally and ethically and you have represented that position well.
Thank you. I’m not sure why you think I don’t have skin in the game though. I actually have a lot of skin in the game. It may not be on Adam’s scale, but it’s more than enough to mean that I care deeply about every governance decision that is made. It motivates me to roll up my sleeves and actively participate in the NNS and SNS as per the governance system design. I believe in privacy and separation of governance participation from financial participation. I don’t expect anyone involved in Synapse or CodeGov to use their actual investment neurons to participate in governance. Their wealth is irrelevant to their value as a credible and reliable Followee.
Great point. Hopefully we will start seeing SNS launches for projects that have already proven to have a good product market fit and that the NNS will become more discerning over which proposals it is willing to adopt.
6 Likes
Encouraged to see the evolution of SNS happening from grass roots like this.
1 Like
Sounds good. Curious about the ownership of the NFT canisters, how is this going to work when someone launches a new collection? Who will control that canister? Will it be attached to the account logged into the marketplace?
I want to follow your ICP and CHAT neurons,
Please drop them in a reply, thanks🌞
1 Like
The Facts:
It’s been a long journey here, and it’s clear that Kongswap’s prediction market hasn’t gained the traction we hoped for—there’s minimal adoption, and user engagement on even sure-shot games is low. This highlights a broader issue: the lack of a strong, active community.
To be clear, this isn’t just about Kongswap or other DEXs—they’re doing good work and continue to build. But the reality is that the ICP ecosystem currently lacks real users. Much of the activity seems artificial or bot-driven, which is deeply concerning.
As a community member, I’m genuinely disappointed that there hasn’t been more focus or open dialogue around how to bring real users into the ICP ecosystem. I Just want to know your insights regarding how to bring people into ICP ecosystem along with shaping or restructuring SNS projects
6 Likes
Dear @Thyassa , @borovan , @Leadership and everyone,
I’m still struggling to understand what are the main issues with the current SNS framework!
Why the SNS DAOs have not produced the intended results as designed, for the benefit of the community that could accelerate growth in ICP ecosystem!
Can we all make a list of the issues and the reasons why, without blaiming anyone?
That would be a good starting point for all of us to discuss and address the challenges at the core!
Wish we all could come up with a better SNS DAO 2.0 model, a fairer system that is flexible enough to adapt to its community needs for growth and risk management!
(With community, I mean all actors that have a stake in DAO or that could influence the fate of the DAO, including Devs and Dfinity)
Very best wishes to all,
Kind regards,
Ermir 
1 Like
Yes, that is one of the things we’ll all be collaborating on going forward.
I think we’re ok, the bar has been raised and the level of scrutiny on these SNS sales has increased tenfold. By the time any changes have been implemented I don’t see much in the way of scams getting through.
6 Likes
I’d also add,
SNS fund raising should be done in rounds, like VC style, and tied to the delivery of each milestone in the roadmap.
Commitment should be long term for the dev team, and they should own majority stake at early dev stages!
We can’t demand community commit long-term while the dev team reputation is not yet built!
Trust is built as each milestone is delivered as promised. With trust comes the commitment!
9 Likes
In Support of Adam and Thyassa
In any open and permissionless governance system, using the rules as designed should never be confused with wrongdoing. Adam and Thyassa have done nothing but operate transparently within the mechanics of the SNS. They bought tokens, made proposals, and voted—exactly what every token holder is entitled to do. If that results in a DAO takeover, the fault lies with the system’s design, not with those who participate legally and openly.
More importantly, their actions have exposed a critical truth: many SNS projects have failed to deliver on their promises, while quietly draining funds meant to build. Adam and Thyassa are not destroying the ecosystem—they’re stress testing it. If your project is real, delivers value, and has a committed community, you’ll thrive. If it was built on hype and handouts, expect to be challenged.
As an investor, watching your SNS tokens lose value while core teams cash out monthly stipends is frustrating, if not infuriating. Adam’s willingness to spend his own money to buy those tokens—tokens others were dumping—gave many of us a second chance to recover some of our investment. That isn’t greed. That’s skin in the game. That’s commitment.
We don’t have to agree with every tactic. But we should be grateful someone is “demanding accountability” when too many others stay silent. Instead of casting stones, maybe it’s time the community asked itself why it tolerated mediocrity for so long—and what it will take to raise the bar from here on out.
Thank you, Adam, for putting your money where your mouth is and standing up for a stronger, fairer ecosystem. Please keep going—many of us are behind you.
17 Likes
Absolutely!
I think many community members now have a much more detailed understanding of the SNS process and what could and many would say should be done to change things going forward.
8 Likes
Great summary and write up! 
Lets all be thankfull this is laid out when Dfinity is still in its DeFi baby shoes.
If anything, people should be more excited now for the future of ICP.
3 Likes
They don’t realize that Adam put his own money at risk by buying tokens from failing projects. I find their outrage hypocritical. What a wonderful “scheme” — I wish we had 100 whales with that kind of “bad” intention in the ICP community.
6 Likes