I couldn’t agree more! We should have a much higher bar for SNS launches, and should expect most of them to be deemed unsuitable. It’ll be interesting to see how the community votes on Tendys soon. I hope people start taking these launches more seriously.
2 Likes
“Thin melon ain’t a preference—it’s a godforsaken right. Like fast cars, loose laws, and pistachios at 3 AM.” - Not Batman
2 Likes
Using company funds for personal reasons is called a directors loan and is legal
in most jurisdictions
5 Likes
If Adam wasn’t raising the uncomfortable questions and inspiring us to be critical instead of maintaining the status quo, would you all know about:
- Draining of the NF with NF funds from other SNSes
- Nodes very likely being centralized
- WTN’s centralization and very likely an attempt to centralize the IC
5 Likes
Yes I agree with everything Adam has done to shake up the community and clean things up. And they have done a lot of good in the community, which would likely be nowhere without his and Donna’s support.
until today, there is a line.
I don’t believe malicious actions justify other malicious actions, sorry.
1 Like
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.
7 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.
12 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?