I expect I will update the websites, threads, etc… as team members of DFINITY answer some more of my questions in process of adding more things to the dfinity.org website.
I am not an expert by any means on this.
great start, patiently waiting to hear more.
Let me ask you this - say, if I was close to DFINITY and I was an organization contributing to IC, would you reveal information to that me then? How do we know DFINITY is not close to ICPMN and pumping it? its clearly visible how DFINITY uses its media channels. Any comments on this?
I’m a bit confused.
What does this “pumping” ICPMN mean? ICPMN is a group of individuals (some of which are Dfinity team members). No different than other names neurons.
What does this have to do with the original ask about the board and others? Can you please clarify?
1 Like
He refers to the connection that exists between some of the members of ICPMN and Definity by being employees. I think it may have to do with conflict of interest. Privileged information, contacts, etc. ICPMN claims to be independent from Dfinity and although it does not hide its 3 members from Dfinity, it obtains 10% of the voting power that together with the Dfinity Foundation have practically the majority in any proposal. It doesn’t seem very decentralized really.
1 Like
personally I see normal that in these stages there is certain centralization. decentralization takes time
2 Likes
but I understand that a person has the right to a single vote, either manually with their own neurons through an entity such as an ICPMN member or through liquid monitoring
1 Like
This sounds like it could be in the next Arkham report.
At the risk of stepping out on a limb, I think it can be surmised that Dfinity is very solidly funded for contingencies for at least the next several years.
Combine what @diegop has said with a look at the current job postings, the size of the staff, the ongoing prize giveaways, and the amount of ICP the Foundation had at launch vs what is currently staked.
There’s a very good chance the Foundation traded some ICP for fiat during the last bull run and made out very well in retrospect, which in my opinion would demonstrate smart financial stewardship of the organization’s assets. But this would also open the Foundation up to “rug pull” accusations, which have already been hyped by bad actors.
There are plenty of reasons why I think this particular accusation is absurd, including those already listed above. The reputation of Dfinity took a hit regardless, and nobody wants to get bit by the same dog twice.
4 Likes
Thanks for your response, @diegop , much appreciated, and I have a lot of trust in your personal commitment to transparency and clear communication. About the Council, I wanted to know if it is just two people or more, thanks for clarifying that.
As far as Dfinity’s finances are concerned, the central issue is the amount of fiat it holds. The ICP holdings are almost irrelevant for the moment and will be for the near future, because the interest from those will not suffice to pay Dfinity staff and grants for the coming two years during which we must assume the value of the coin will stay fairly low.
I personally do not buy the excuse that fiat holdings need to be shielded from bad actors. Unless there is something deeply worrying in the data. But I am not suggesting this is an excuse being used by C-level. Some of the ways the IC has been maliciously attacked have been made public. Others are probably known to the top staff but can’t be revealed for fear of lawsuits.
Those that are in the public domain show that a certain billionaire who is currently very unpopular deserves every bit of that unpopularity. But they also show that Dfinity was extraordinarily naive in the way it went about the listing and its aftermath. I hope that, even though Dfinity has never publicly acknowledged its mistakes, perhaps because there are class action suits to be fought which would be hurt by such admissions, there is an internal recognition that Dfinity bears at least as much responsibility as bad actors in the debacle.
We are now in a strange situation, where information cannot be revealed while Dfinity considers itself vulnerable, but at a point where it feels less vulnerable, the information will be irrelevant in practical terms, since at that point the ICP price will be worth enough to form a visible defence against malicious players, and Dfinity’s ICP holdings will be worth far more than whatever fiat it might possess.
4 Likes
I also hope that, while Dfinity understands the costs of revealing information, it also understands there are serious costs to withholding information. While the information is hidden, potential investors have no idea about Dfinity’s financial position except through indirect means, and therefore no way of gauging the network’s medium term viability. Without such visibility few major new investors will make a commitment to the IC.
4 Likes
You seem to ignore questions about grants.
Tell me, isn’t a crypto foundation supposed to be neutral? Why does this crypto foundation favour one group of individuals who have done nothing but voted in their self interest?
Also, @diegop , is there any barrier to releasing information related to conflicts of interest within Dfinity, specifically making public stakes held by high-ranking Dfinity employees in IC dApps and firms building on the IC?
2 Likes
I would like to know who received CAP grants. If not by name, then at least a description of the project/effort.
I want to make sure I follow: Are you asking for information on which DFINITY team members have invested or own portions if IC dapps? Is this what you mean?
DFINITY definitely very much aware. We know it is a painful, painful stand DFINITY has, and one of the hidden and under appreciated costs from all the bad actor attacks: it has made us more protective than we would like.
Speaking for myself, i think the reputational costs are great, but still smaller than some of the potential attacks… I really hope this trade-off is reversed soon.
2 Likes
@esquivada Thank you for helping to interpret what @CatPirate may have meant.
Speaking for myself, I think ICPMN has done a lot for the IC community and they only reason they have voting power is because they were among the first to be named neurons in the early days (notably NOT the first, i think cycleDAO was first). Nothing stopped anyone to become named neurons and they even encouraged others.
(sidenote: i may be wrong, but I think some cycledao voting power went to ICPMN via following when cycle dao disbanded, and that is the main contributor to the ICPMN voting power. I need to verify this.)
I think in any protocol, if there are not enough entities representing, the solution is NOT to criticize the early entities stepping forward, but rather give them credit so we can welcome more.
Historically speaking… ICPMN was created after MONTHS of no entities stepping up into governance. Some times they even vote against what DFINITY votes. I think we should welcome ANY new entrants, as to encourage more.
Anecdote: i once asked a big ICP person why they are not a named neurons when there were only a handful. They said,"Why? I don’t get paid and I see how the others get criticized."
This is what decentralization looks like: encourage more entities, specially the early ones who came forward.If people do not like what they represent, they can stop following them. I think that is a fair shake.
5 Likes
I personally like ICPMN, I think they have good intentions. But being pioneers gives the feeling of centralization. Over time and with the creation of new neurons, IC will be decentralized. Also, as you rightly say, the power of liquid democracy allows you to follow whoever you want.
2 Likes
I honestly do not think Dfinity has. If you have seen otherwise, that is something to remedy of course. I can of course be convinced there have been accidental actions, but I’m not aware of anything deliberate.
Can you provide an example (of either accidental or deliberate)?
I am tired of listing all the proposals and how DFINITY has been pumping ICPMN, leading to the centralization of voting power and ecosystem development. I did make a Twitter thread(s) about it, the number of exploitable and reckless proposals created by ICPMN. That too for tokenomics… How many more clear examples should I provide?
I think it’s reasonable for you to be tired of repeating your own question, but how do you expect me to answer your question if I do not have the context? Maybe you can link to the relevant twitter threads and I can read?
I am honestly trying to reach out and best answer your questions, as annoying as I may sound.
3 Likes