And yet you are not covered by Messari, The Block, Coin telegraph, Coinmarkercap. You do know the numbers are crazy.
18K nodes
2000+ POC nodes
Why are you not raising funds via institutional investors?
With the numbers, isn’t it easy to go to any investors and they will put few millions on your table. Why sacrificing tokens at low valuation and raise tiny amount of fund.
What follows is Not legal nor financial advice. Dyor. But this is my impression of EMC; having interacted with the EMC team.
I really think that they believe in the vision of decentralized GPU compute. Having lurked around in their Telegram as well as having talked to one of the potential user in SF (in a code and state meetup), they have GROWN to the level that they have because of the excitement that they have created. Is that a bad thing? I think not. Growth should be respected, IMO.
The model is quite simple really. Reuse the GPUs for GenAI work that then gets paid for in the secondary market by GenAI derivative work.
Is their git up to stuff. The last time i checked, no. But that is not the point. EMC is ALL infra. It’s like saying OpenAi’s sole business model is to complete conversations with simple API. I would really urge the readers to go through the implications of EMC as a layer 2 to ICP.
I believe there is a misguided notion within the IC community, compare with other SNS project:
if your goals are ambitious, then high standards are expected;
if your goals are modest, people tend not to be too demanding.
It’s a strange phenomenon where lofty goals become limiting factors.
Please carefully consider whether MeMe Coin can drive an explosive growth in the IC ecosystem or if a direct integration of AI and IC is more likely.
EMC is not just a simple software app; it’s an ecosystem involving software, hardware, and comprehensive capabilities in global resource integration.
Sorry I can’t accept your perspective.
Why aren’t the same standards applied to projects that have already been approved by SNS-DAO?
Besides, EMC has received invitations for listings from several exchanges and wallet, without their prior experience with ICP’s DIP20 or ICRC-1, they need to research the technology and development of ICP. EMC miners come from the ETH and FIL communities, and they have registered IC wallets (mostly Plug and Me) because of EMC. We are helping to promote wider adoption of ICP…
Furthermore, EMC has many collaboration opportunities with various Web3 ecosystem projects, and signed MOUs with significant MCNs. Our participation in WebX in Japan and media coverage highlights EMC’s collaborative plans in the computing power index.
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2023-07-30/ceex-exchange-grandly-launches-global-ai-computing-power-index-at-tokyo-webx-conference
If EMC is rejected due to outstanding performance, it indicates a lack of clarity in SNS’s criteria. This standard should be fair to all projects participating in SNS.
Yes, the discussion here has nothing to do with financial advice. It’s about whether SNS should measure projects against a unified standard.
If you don’t believe in EMC, you are free not to invest a penny in the subsequent SNS Launchpad. However, if EMC indeed meets the unified standard set by SNS, I believe everyone should vote “Yes”.
EMC doesn’t have an official token yet, why would Messari, The Block, Coin telegraph, Coinmarkercap cover it? Is it all unreasonable not to be in your assessed value system?
How do you know that no VCs are interested in EMC, as the CEO of EMC, I can say here in charge that there are at least 6 reputable VCs in contact with the EMC team at the moment, even including ICP’s own investment organization. The share reserved for VCs in the whitepaper is only 6% because we believe web3 projects are more deserving of fundraising through a decentralized approach. Let me tell you where the biggest disruptions came from. 2 organizations were concerned about the lack of liquidity of ICPs, and the fact that EMCs being tied to ICPs could lead to exit problems in the future. One organization was unhappy that 6% was too little. But so far, no VCs are unhappy with the external valuation of EMC, which is well above the SNS fundraising cap. Why SNS’s valuation is so low, please go and understand the mechanism of SNS before asking this question.
None of these platforms need a token to analyze your project. Give us one credible document or article from a prestigious firm to support your claims. Everything this team touches looks like a big dark pool mess to me.
You don’t need SNS. How you are hyping up EMC looks like you are doing a favor to ICP. I would wait before I vote YES for your project. If you are still here after six months, let’s come back and look at the updates/review.
I vote NO, and I urge everyone to VOTE NO on this proposal because it’s too early and things are all over the place.
I voted yes
It’s really strange for me that early projects like Boom Dao or Ghust coin meme get positive votes
But a project like EMC, which has tens of thousands of lines of code written for it, gets downvoted
Why they easily get a yes vote, but EMC is faced with strict treatment
Hugging Face – The AI community building the future.
This is what the IC needs.
It seems to me that you are already assuming that EMC is guilty first, and then we have to produce evidence to prove our innocence. Is that correct and fair?
We will prove the value of EMC, not for you, but for ourselves and the supporters of EMC, and if you’re still here in 6 months, maybe you’ll change your mind about us.
This thread is now 10 weeks old and 270+ posts long. I recommend reading the first post again ( and no more than the first 25 ) to revisit the reasons the EMC team gave for proposing an SNS launch for their project.
Over the past two months the EMC team has put a lot of effort into addressing the concerns and scepticism raised here about whether their project is appropriate and ready for an SNS decentralization launch. They have promoted and grown their distributed GPU node testnet from hundreds to thousands of machines, lanched a dashboard dapp showing the distribution and compute capacity of those nodes, launched a functional MVP UI dapp for utilising the testnet for running AIGC models, successfully sold limited release novel NFT collections for GPU compute time and AIGC model assets on YUMI marketplace, established business partner relationships with infrastructure & developer & marketing & AI user organisations, released and open-sourced their various code bases, held Twitter Spaces AMA sessions at least weekly with english-chinese live translation to involve both language communities and inform everyone about who they are and what they are aiming to achieve.
Despite all of this there are some in this forum and the IC community who remain sceptical about EMC; and that’s ok. Not everyone is convinced that each project on the SNS launch list has earned their support.
What I would ask of anyone still undecided about this SNS is to remember that EMC is a full-stack decentralized GPU “cloud” infrastructure project hoping to compete with several highly centralised GPU cloud services controlled by single corporate entities. These companies deploy many millions of dollars to purchase and deploy the thousands of GPU hardware nodes they need, typically with massive amounts of VC money.
The EMC project team has a couple of “secret weapons” that will give them a good shot at achieving this aim:
Why would all this be worth the effort? Because distributed computation and sovereign information for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-resourced, is a worthy goal. This is what I think the ICP and EMC projects and communities have in common and why this EMC project deserves the support of the IC community.
But a project like EMC, which has tens of thousands of lines of code written for it, gets downvoted
If only those “thousands of lines of code” were written by the EMC team itself.
All references to “GitHub - 0xPolygon/polygon-edge: A Framework for Building Ethereum-compatible Blockchain Networks” were stripped from the emc_node repository at “GitHub - EMCProtocol-dev/emc_node”.
There’s no mention of the original authors (Polygon Labs) or that the emc_node repository is a fork.
That repository alone accounts for most of those “thousands of lines of code”.
The original project (polygon-edge) was released under a permissive license (Apache 2.0), but let’s at least give credit where it’s due.
Dear Community Members,
After a comprehensive review, DFINITY has decided not to support the current proposal. Our decision stems from various inconsistencies, discrepancies, and concerns that we believe are essential to address:
No Canisters under SNS Control:There are no canisters currently under SNS control. The call to list_sns_canisters on the SNS root canister returns an empty list, contrary to expectations. This means there is no value assigned to the DAO that goes beyond a “promise”.
Discrepancy in Tokenomics Sheet and SNS Initialization Parameters: There are mismatches between the proposed tokenomics and the actual SNS initialization parameters.
proposal_reject_cost is 100 tokens, but when calling get_nervous_system_parameters on the SNS governance canister, the reject_cost_e8s is 5_000_000_000, so 50 tokens. This can also be seen on the dashboardneuron_miniumum_stake is 10 tokens, but when calling get_nervous_system_parameters on the SNS governance canister, the neuron_minimum_stake_e8s is 100_000_000, so 1 token. This can also be seen on the dashboardDiscrepancy in Tokenomics Sheet and proposal payload: There are mismatches between the proposed tokenomics and the actual proposal payload.
The tokenomics sheet states the max_participant_icp is 100 tokens, but when checking the proposal payload the max_participant_icp_e8s is 15000000000000, so 150 tokens.
Contradiction in Reward Rate: The current proposal text, the governance canister and the tokenomics sheet provide different reward rates. The current proposal text states the following:
Voting Rewards: The reward rate will start from 2% annually. This rate would decline over time and settle at total 5% over 10 years.
In the tokenomics sheet the reward rate is constant at 2.5%.
When calling get_nervous_system_parameters on the SNS governance canister, the final_reward_rate_basis_points and initial_reward_rate_basis_points are 0 respectively, indicating that there are no voting rewards at all. This can also be seen on the dashboard
Dissolved Neuron Owning 10% of Tokens: There is a neuron that is part of the airdrop_neurons and has 0 dissolve delay and no vesting that owns ~10% of all tokens (owner r5jfq-5ofkq-xg2fn-7osp7-lul5j-nnoqo-juxba-2mdmh-ezqhf-sbvo7-uae). This is in conflict with the information provided in the proposal and the tokenomics sheet.
In addition, although this did not factor in our decision for now, we would strongly recommend every project to adhere to a max of 10% from the Neuron Fund. This has been recommended in the guidelines and although DFINITY hasn’t yet rejected any proposal due to this factor, we would start doing that in the future. At this time EMC requested for 11% the proposal submission, which does not align with the suggested minimum standards for neuron fund contribution.
Please note that NF is for the community and if teams start overdrawing then the Neuron Fund contributors may find it difficult to support future teams. Hence we strongly recommend you to restrict your ask to max 10%. Additionally it is our recommendation that the Neuron Fund should ideally be 1/3 or at most 1/2 of the minimal ICP to be raised.
The noted inconsistencies compel us to urge for further clarification and review of the proposal.
We are open to discussions and collaboration to address these concerns and ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of the entire community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Does this mean Dfinity will reject every proposal that’s on the move? Project like Seers are asking for 30% I guess. Same goes with BoomDAO
Before submitting the proposal on SNS, the EMC team had tried to communicate with Dfinity through Slack and sharing the tokenomic configuration file to more than 10 Dfinity team members, but didn’t receive any replies or technical support. EMC team had to rely on KINIC and hotornot’s code for reference. EMC tokenomic has much more complex parameters.
During the early communication with Dfinity, Dom has suggested EMC to establish a foundation, which the team did. However, SNS as a new product has it’s limitation, the tokenomic parameters were divided into three parts: treasury, team, and airdrop. The treasury was meant for issuing EMC ecosystem rewards, and SNS required that the team’s share couldn’t exceed swap. EMC has to use airdrops parameter to hold EMC Foundation’s share which result in the mismatch of configuration vs tokenomic file template on Airdrop parameter.
The proposal has been submitted for four days, giving Dfinity enough time to communicate with the EMC team if there were any issues with the parameters. However, it seems that the rejection vote happened within the last three hours of the voting period when the community had already voted 19.3% yes and 12% no, leading to a veto (30% no) well showcasing of decentralized governance.
EMC has confirm the guidance of 10% CF limit of mature neuron fund and adjusted the proposal to match 10% and verify the mature neuron fund pool, which was $4,080,000+(408,000 corresponding to 10%), and it complied with the rules at the time of the proposal submission. Any changes in the CF quota during the voting period were beyond EMC’s prediction range, and once a proposal is submitted, it cannot be modified.
On the other hand, catalyze had submitted with 400K corresponding to 12% of mature neuron fund, but during the voting period, they accurately predicted the increase in the mature neuron fund of over 4m, leading to a reduction of CF from 12% to 10%, which seemed quite remarkable.
list_sns_canisters on the SNS root canister returns an empty list, contrary to expectations. This means there is no value assigned to the DAO that goes beyond a “promise”.Regarding the error and mismatch of parameters, Before submitting the proposal on SNS, the EMC team had tried to communicate with DFINITY team through Slack and sharing the tokenomic configuration file to more than 10 DFINITY team members, but didn’t receive any replies or technical support. EMC team had to rely on KINIC and hotornot’s code for reference. EMC tokenomic has much more complex parameters, and due to various version of parameter before final submission, EMC team had made some errors in filling the parameters 2,3,4.
Weird, the Catalyze required 40w icp for Community Fund just a few days ago, and you didnt say No.
I voted for this but I don’t have any problem with the foundation rejecting the proposal for the reasons cited. Time to go back to the drawing board and try again.
@cryptoschindler This is the root cause, why Dfinity reject to communicate with EMC team, but reject them at the end of SNS proposal?
The role of Dfinity should be a supporter and leader of the ICP ecosystem, rather than acting as a judge.