Not a real thing (there’s only one truth)
I was too lazy to organize them all and a couple people are away from keyboard and we would have to plan it out and make it so
TFW no boutique sns to do Dadaist art on Icp
Great to have Ai here to help out, what I thought to be just another memecoin turns out to be Art.
“Dadaist art refers to a movement in avant-garde art that emerged during World War I, characterized by its rejection of logic, reason, and aesthetic conventions, often embracing absurdity and randomness. In the context of the conversation, it seems to be used metaphorically to express frustration or irony about the lack of creative or decentralized platforms (like boutique SNS) for artistic expression, possibly highlighting the absence of innovative or unconventional digital spaces.”
Review TACODAO TacoDao
Vote YES
Based off the TacoDao Dapp vote
Toolkit (Yaml file analyzer for tokenomics) VP 84 % towards the participants developer 15%
Comedy is inherently social and is the product of Tendies. The community around a group of people making stupid jokes together is the thing that is being decentralized. Having a canister running with a joke picture of the Sistine chapel and putting that under control of the group who’s joke it is, is the point of having it be an SNS token. It’s decentralizing control of a culture, so that people who are part of that culture group can own it.
I’m having trouble following your reasons for rejecting because your individual responses are each highlighting different reasons. And it’s fair to have multiple reasons to reject. But I would like to see a comprehensive list of changes that could be made in this proposal that would allow you to consider a yes vote (it sounds like the first 2 items are probably a 2 week review period and control of the Sistine chapel canister?). Or if you are simply an “absolutely no” vote for some reason, it would be useful for that to be made clear so there’s not a lot of wasted time digging for how to adjust. This goes to all of the people getting grants for reviewing these proposals who are giving the quite lazy response of “doesn’t follow guidelines in this lengthy post”. The post even opens with
”Before we go into details, we would like to make the following disclaimer: Given that the SNS framework is very new, the community & we have only very limited experience on reviewing and voting on actual proposals. With experience collected over time, our views and focus points might evolve. This post only provides initial thoughts from the perspective of DFINITY. Other (known) neurons might have different views.”
It also seems that your feeling is along the lines of “the launchpad is an exclusive club, and rejection is the norm”, but your remedy to launch an SNS outside of the launchpad doesn’t seem like an actually battle tested solution, or a very realistic one. Your linked documentation is running on some canister and seems to be quite dated (only icrc1 is referenced for example). And I don’t find any kind of corresponding documents on dfinity’s live docs portal. Even if this solution is still possible, it’s not a good solution for a group that is focused on memes and community to try and add managing a custom SNS implementation to their plate. So the suggestion doesn’t come across as very genuine.
Pls vote to approve that would be swell! Like we can all come together and kumbaya and stuff
This isn’t being decentralised by the proposed launch. Nothing is. As I’ve mentioned, there are no canisters listed for decentralisation.
In my opinion an SNS needs to show:
- Reasonable measures to ensure genuine decentralisation, so that investors cannot easily be rug-pulled.
- Needs to actually be decentralising something (in the form of dapp canisters), as that’s what the SNS framework is designed to decentralise
- The something that’s being decentralised needs to show some sort of market fit, such that it could reasonably be assumed to generate some sort of value for SNS governance token holders
- Governance tokens that can reasonably be assumed to hold some sort of value for an identifiable market of holders is important, or governance capture becomes easy (and the whole point of a decentralisation sale is undone).
There’s no value prop it’s a chicken tender on the internet computer. The can one day be value if governance holders make it so.
The sns framework itself is what is being decentralized.
that is called honesty 
if only many previous sns did the same.
I think having some canisters be part of the launch makes sense and is a valid requirement. But I think trying to protect swap participants is an impossible task to quantify and shouldn’t be part of the reviewers responsibility. The review guidelines you linked as being the basis for your review even call it out as a non goal:
Out of scope
An assessment of the viability of a given project is out of scope of our assessment. This is up for the participants of the SNS swap to decide.
Completely disagree. If this were the case there would be no point in a launch proposal as the requirement verification would be super easy to automate.
Your logic is also false. As an analogy, you cannot prevent breaking and entering. That does not mean that locks and other reasonable security measures are out of scope for front doors.
Well I guess we’ll disagree there. I feel like “do I think this will be profitable” is a better question for swap participants to be making as they are the one’s who have their money on the line. And it feels like too much gate keeping to me for reviewers to treat that aspect as their responsibility. Having to convince lorimer your project is going to be a financial success just doesn’t seem like a good system to maximally leverage the tech here IMO.
Nobody needs to convince me of anything in order to launch an SNS via the launch pad. My vote is just mine and my followers. I reject the majority of these sorts of proposals - that hasn’t stopped many of them from launching.
I also don’t need to be convinced in the value of an SNS, only that other’s see value in it. This can be achieved by setting a high minimum threshold for the decentralisation sale.
that is certainly true, I noticed. You have always been consistent. you have clear principles guiding your decisions and I respect that.
I am not as black and white about “rules.”
I think different SNS require different levels of diligence and scrutiny, based on what they are asking for, and the claims and value proposition they are making.
This SNS is asking for nothing other than to use the launch pad. They are making ZERO claims as to value proposition.
I don’t think that’s true, and even if it were, your logic undoes the point of the NNS proposal. It’s quite literally designed for gatekeeping. That’s exactly what the NNS is - a communal, consensual gatekeeper.
Tendies is a quality project. You just don’t get it.
you conveniently cherry picked henry’s obvious memeing comments and forgot this one:
That goes without saying doesn’t it. I picked out a bunch of claims regarding a value proposition. You may think there’s no claim to a value proposition, but
You guys are no fun!
TACO DAO voted yes on this, and as a so-called community manager, perhaps I should try intuiting why. While I do not have access to every voter’s reasoning, I am familiar with some facts the TACO DAO may be familiar with, that the rest of you lot might not be familiar with. Allow me to provide y’all an excerpt from TACO DAO’s due diligence on sGLDT:
sGLDT was devved up by Bitcorn Labs, a loose conglomerate of anon devs with an extensive history of contributions to the ICP ecosystem. They are closely affiliated with the Sneed DAO. Some of their contributions include:
-
Migrating tokens through dip20, icrc1, and icrc2 token standards
-
Helping create an early indexer of ICRC tokens and produce token transaction URLs in a format needed to list on websites like OpenChat
-
Helping to add Sneed to OpenChat, which was the first token to be used for tipping
-
Creating a webpage that shows locked tokens for SneedLock, which locks tokens and liquidity pool positions for predefined durations
-
Creating a service that automatically creates DAO proposals to top up cycles when cycle balances are low
This same loose conglomerate of anon devs can be said to be closely affiliated with Tendys. There’s nothing else for me to really say that hasn’t been said already. The argument here appears to be on whether Tendys should have the great privilege of being highlighted on the launchpad as an SNS DAO, and I say hell yeah, it could be fun, and we need some fun. smug/henry/? has been good.