Also, I have not raised money from a VC. I’ve turned down a serious offer from outside the ICP ecosystem. (They wanted more equity than I was willing to do for pre-seed; 2023) I’m building from the ground up.
2 Likes
You have chatted with me before actually, when I reached out long ago to invite you on an X space. Also, when I popped into your discord it was a few questions, and it was to offer help. Anyways, have a good night!
2 Likes
Hmm ok was probably just drunk paranoia then!
I think this is the case. I think the distinction between nICP and WTN is understood by those discussing this. What they’re getting at is that if you assume one person, or a united clique, own >50% of WTN SNS VP, then the VP of everyone else in that DAO will never ever make a difference on the NNS (even though that’s what they bought their WTN for if they are taking their role seriously, which they should be). As far as the vote on the NNS is concerned, your WTN VP will never make a single bit of difference. This is all true, if you’re to assume the premise.
Given that this is crypto, rather than trying to prove that the premise isn’t true / won’t become true (you can’t), the solution is to make the NNS VP that WaterNeuron triggers actually reliably representative of the WTN community (even in the event that the above premise is true) i.e. instead of a potential clique triggering 100% of WTNs NNS VP using only 51% of the SNS VP, they would only be able to trigger more or less 51% of WaterNeuron’s VP on the NNS.
This would significantly reduce the potential attack vector that WaterNeuron has the potential introduce to the NNS. This would therefore mean that WaterNeuron could be trusted with more VP before the NNS would potentially need to take an interventionary course of action (ideally this would never be needed).
There is therefore every reason to address this issue (for security, as well as for WTN’s potential for long term success and investor returns). The only reason to avoid addressing this is the technical complexity. I’ve had some thoughts about that and plan to post something on a related thread later.
In the meantime, I think it would help for everyone to at least agree that there’s an issue. The WTN dev team have already acknowledged that there’s potential for improvement in this area.
Let’s see if we can get on the same page.
6 Likes
David Fisher always seemed liked a good guy to me. He’s been quite an advocate for Dfinity over the years.
If 9 yd capital invested early and made returns, then good on them. That’s the risk they took
He’s a node provider, invested into ICP projects and what it seems like he hasn’t sold much, but staked a fair amount of his tokens.
What exactly is the issue here?
If we’re going after VCs that have proactively invested into the network, then god help us.
2 Likes
Slight correction. Adam is going after vcs that arent himself or his cabal of friends who are planning to take over the ecosystem daos.
No one has an issue with the VCs.
The issue is the WTN protocol which casts a vote leveraging nICP liquid stakers.
And the vote cast is vulnerable to not be anywhere near representative of WTN holders due to the fact that it is binary.
@Lorimer and @infu have thoroughly discussed and explained the problem with the protocol to death. @1eo acknowledged issues with the protocol and many recommendations have been made to fix it. Its baffling to me that people cant agree on this.
1 Like
@dfisher can you confirm or deny that this account is yours? Also, what are you going to do with the 4.5 million ish ICP that you have liquid?
Thanks for the explanation. I can definitely agree that there are improvement opportunities. I’m just hoping we can solve the easier one first, which is to enable all WTN stakers to easily let their WTN neuron follow whatever NNS neuron they want to follow on the Vote for NNS Proposals. I think that would be a dramatic improvement over having to follow a WTN neuron on a topic where there are very few practical options for Followees. It seems like lower hanging fruit that can make an immediate difference.
1 Like
Are you referring to your idea where you were planning to create a WTN neuron for each of the popular known neurons on the NNS?
That has precisely the opposite effect (appearing to offer decentralisation, while actually sybiling WTN known neurons which would have the same controller, which would not be who controls the neurons on the NNS).
It’s not the low hanging fruit you describe. I think you’ve misunderstood the problem.
No Alex. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’ll cross post here for easy reference. Please try to read it objectively this time. Think in terms of what @1eo or @EnzoPlayer0ne could build into the protocol. Or even what you could build. I’ve done all I can do to help solve this decentralization problem, but you all have the skills to implement a more effective and appropriate solution directly into the protocol.
I’m glad you’re not moving forward with your earlier plan →
the only option left, which is the easiest option for everyone except me, is for CodeGov to create these vote relay pairs and use WTN neurons that are controlled by CodeGov. [(me)]
Your latest suggestion shows that you’re still misunderstanding the guts of the issue that @infu has put forward.
NNS neurons can’t signal a decision on any WTN topic other than the mirrored NNS topics. If those neurons are mirrored using a ‘trustless’ mechanism controlled by the protocol, all those neurons become exposed to the 51% attack that you’re suggesting they’d protect against.
1 Like
Im still very confused on how everyone missed this topic during the sns sale.
Currently the only way for a 51% attack to happen on wtn is through voters following others. So in reality allowing wtn owners to cast the vote through their own nns neuron this removes the ease of a single entity from gaining control through voter following.
Granular voting is further away and adds a lot of complexity for a voting system that mimics the nns. If that is seen as the best path forward then implementing the easier fix to the problem that wbp suggested should be the first step to mitigate concerns.
Or maybe the best path forward is to remove voter following and make manual voting mandatory within wtn.
1 Like
Start by assuming the worst (but hoping for the best).
1 Like
If the majority vote to adopt then does that not represent the community?
The only way for majority vote to not represent the community is through voter following. (Even then it is arguable that it still does, as the voter choose to follow that neuron.)
So like I said the quick “Band-Aid” to the problem is to create a way for users to follow their own neuron on votes instead of other peoples, and then work to create a more detailed fix such as granular voting.
1 Like
no sadly it does not, that is the issue here
2 Likes
Not in the most reliable way, no. This is security critical, we need to remember that.
It basically boils down to this →
1 Like
I feel you are not understanding me here.
I am for granular voting. I am also for something to be put in place to act as another security measure from one entity gathering a majority vp through voter following. Why not implement the easy one first while the more complex and time consuming one gets worked out?
1 Like
Its a matter of scale and what level of granularity is appropriate.
When were talking about what could potentially become 10% of the nns vote… finer granularity seems more appropriate.
You’ve changed your comment since responses were posted (but not captured by the edit history I guess because it was shortly after posting).
Great, we agree this is needed. Lets talk about that part if we’re going to keep discussing this.
1 Like