Thanks Malcolm. Being a startup is tough, especially in the speculative world of Web3 where it’s even harder to do something meaningful.
I love the vision that Web3 and DAOs have given us, but sometimes I get frustrated with all the inferior projects overshadowing the good ones.
I used to work on recommendation algorithms in Web2, and I despise how big Web2 gigantic companies exploit user data and keep users hooked with precise recommendations.
Data and algorithms should empower people to be more creative. That’s where AI and Web3 come in.
I believe EMC and Itoka are just getting started. The future should be allowing users to participate in AI creation through DAOs and ensuring fair value distribution.
I think SNS gives every ICP developer a fair and open opportunity to start something amazing, unleashing their boundless creativity through DAOs.
Hi @zed.emc, I meant no offense. From my experience in Web 3, I don’t believe most of what people say on the internet. I really try to live by “Don’t trust, verify.” which is all I am trying to do here. Americans have a lot of problems, we’re definitely not perfect. I apologize if I offended you in some way, that was not my intention.
I’m not sure what I said to get such an angry response, but I think it’s fair to leave this here for context. Again, I meant no disrespect. I still wish you luck on your project and will not participate in the thread any longer.
Thanks for your rational analysis and suggestions. As for open-sourcing the code, auditing the contracts, publicizing the team, and outlining the use of funds, all of these will be completed before SNS. We welcome developers to pay attention to EMC and join us in perfecting the vision of AI+Web3! Therefore, ICP is also getting closer to the vision of a World Computer through EMC computing power network and lots of AI applications.
Yes, I agree that SNS financing through CF indeed requires detailed due diligence. But I think both the due diligence process and the professionals who can participate in due diligence need to have corresponding procedures and standards. I think a reasonable process is:
The project team posts an SNS application on the forum.
NNS commissions nominated neurons or professionals to conduct due diligence, then compiles an evaluation report and publishes it on the forum
Other community members then review the report and ask questions about the project team.
The project team decides whether to submit a proposal based on the evaluation report and community feedback.
Once a proposal is submitted to NNS, the community votes to decide whether to proceed with community financing of the SNS.
The evaluation report should be expressed in quantifiable and intuitive numbers, by scoring different dimensions, community members can clearly see the development status of this project. I once participated in the node election of the EOS chain, the following image is a schematic diagram of the evaluation model provided by the EOS community when evaluating candidate nodes, and I hope it can provide some reference for everyone.
Thanks for the enthusiasm and warmth from the IC community. I have been working in the blockchain industry for many years, and in this industry filled with money, speculation, and impatience, I know that many people come in with ideals and leave with frustration.
In the Chinese tech community, there is a saying: “Some believe because they see, while others see because they believe.” We are seekers and pioneers, and we EMC team will gradually prove the architecture through codes and data. We will not be disheartened by a few words; instead, we aspire to make valuable changes for Web3.
Lastly, I’m delighted to see such intense discussions within the IC community. In Web3, where token prices dominate the conversations, but IC community approaches each project with great diligence, rigor, and rationality from multiple perspectives such as code, team, data, and applications.
I believe that IC will provide EMC with a long-term, secure, and diversified environment, while EMC will reward IC with numerous AI developers, AI applications, and users.
Maybe your experience has led you to live in “Don’t trust, verify.”
That’s your freedom.
But my experience has taught me not to make assumptions of guilt first, otherwise it is a great insult to others. Many things are beyond your perception, and anything you don’t understand is sinful.
After reading your reply, I probably understand what kind of person you are, having suffered a loss and fallen for it, maybe that’s not your intention, but it doesn’t mean I agree with you.
It’s done, apology accepted. How heavy a person try to live by “Don’t trust, verify.” all day. Take care of yourself.
As an IC developer and ICP whale, I find the behavior of Dfinity disheartening. The cherry-picking and endorsement of projects for the SNS without even attempting to simulate a minimal level of decentralization is truly disappointing. It is clear that projects are not being held to the same standards.
Despite the impressive technical aspects on the IC, it seems that the individuals involved lack an understanding of web3, as they are blinded by power and their own ambitions.
I’m seriously contemplating leaving the crypto space.
I would like to help you understand why @zed.emc reacted so strongly to your comments. Before I do, I want to emphasise that these are my own reading of these interactions based only on my own experience managing a team of employees from contrasting cultural backgrounds; I don’t purport to speak for anyone on the EMC team and if I misrepresent anyone involved here including yourself, please tell me so.
With those disclaimers said, this comes down to the use and unintended misuse of two powerful words: “trust” and “respect”.
@jwarner when you said “I don’t trust you” I am almost certain @zed.emc was directly insulted by that phrase. It implied he is not worthy of your trust even though you have never met or that he has taken any action to damage your trust. I believe you did not intend this or understand the strong reaction, and the response was not measured, but here we are.
Also, your clear rejection of the offer for @alxgoh to meet with you in person (virtually) to answer your questions about their EMC project would have been received as a sign of strong and underserved disrespect.
@jwarner it is very clear to me that you have engaged in this discussion with genuine good intentions backing a reasonably blunt and forthright approach to seeking information from a team new to the IC community asking for a highly valued resource (SNS proposal approval & community funds) which you and other highly engaged members of this community are rightfully protective of.
But to achieve understanding and agreement (or agreeing to disagree) where different language and cultural backgrounds are in play requires an extra effort starting with a reasonable degree of shared trust and respect. The corollary of someone having to earn your trust and respect is that you (maybe) have given them none to begin with. In my experience offer a certain amount of both in advance and being strong enough to maybe bear losing it is a more productive place to start.
If this comes across as lecturing then I sincerely apologize in advance. But I have read this whole thread in significant dismay at how hard it seems to be for so many highly intelligent and engaged people to maintain polite and effective communication when they have all chosen a common cause of international scope to be a part of.
We, refers to the ICP community members who have been doing their due diligence regarding your SNS proposal…
You’re a completely new face to this ecosystem, and have taken offence to people doing their research before voting in favour of giving you 4m$ from the CF.
So far, all I’ve said critical of your project is that it doesn’t seem like you’ve done your due diligence on ICP to the fullest extent, based on our initial dialogue, in which your team claimed you had to do an SNS, because it was the only way to make an ICRC.
You’re welcome to do your due diligence as well, but telling people they have to earn the right to ask you questions won’t get you very far.
Got it , new face is Original Sin
It’s like the scene at the beginning of the movie “The Shawshank Redemption”: Old-timers watched Andy came in, look, new fish here.
The web3 world is not free from territorial awareness either.
Dfinity did DD on EMC, and you should trust it. Also, many project parties in the IC community are familiar with the EMC team. Don’t worry about it, leave me alone, I still have a lot of work to finish, it’s 4:00am CST and we are still working overtime. No effort to deal with you.
Is there a way we can structure these conversations to where it can be more of a Q+A or constructive criticism? Ive seen a few of these threads where it falls apart into attacking each other.
It seems like if there are any non recognized organizations, people get suspicious, for good reason. Maybe dfinity can give an endorsement right away to show that it isn’t a ‘scam’
Also it seems like one bug concern is the use of the community fund is a hot topic and who should ‘qualify’ for it. Might make sense to have some consensus on norms for the request of those funds.
How about we try a reset of this thread and go back to asking a couple of simple but salient questions of the EMC team.
WHEN
From the very first paragraph of this thread:
Q1: when is"soon"? Next week? Next month? In 2-3 before the EMC Mainnet launches? After mainnet launch?
I think the assumption amongst many posting above is that EMC is rushing to an SNS vote with the expected preparation and milestones. But maybe this thread was intended by the EMC team to introduce the project directly to the core ICP community to prepare the ground for a future SNS proposal submission.
So WHEN seems like an important question.
HOW
How does the ICP community want the EMC team to prove its good standing and fidelity in advance of submitting an SNS proposal? @MillionMiles in this post above gives a clear and reasonable set of steps to progress this. Others have offered valuable advice above. Dfinity recently released an SNS preparation roadmap. Is the EMC team aware of and these steps and do they understand them? Are any of these conditions too onerous or not applicable? Taking this through a shared process would help I think.
WHY
A lot of the distance separating many Community contributors from teams planning and proposing SNS launches seems to come down to this question. Why do they want to do a full SNS launched via NNS vote.
Some question the need, some question the competence and some question the good motives of SNS launch teams because they are asking for community fund contributions. Some of these challenges put to EMC and previous SNS launch teams are fair and proportionate. Some are overly aggressive and include ad hominem attacks accusing serious projects of being a scam, without evidence to justify those accusations AFAICT.
Frankly it is laughable that any true scammers doing research on using an SNS launch to rugpull would think ICP was an easy target after reading the robust and engaged discussions in this community forums. If they got one past you lot I would eat my hat!
But try to look at this from the outside. Dfinity marketing and promotional efforts emphasise the SNS DAO as a key difference to other blockchains and a reason for existing developer teams and other projects to move ICP. So is it really any suprise that projects arrive here expecting this to be something achievable and even expected of them?
So yes we should challenge and explain and educate newly arrived teams about why an SNS launch may not be the best way for them to proceed, and how to proceed to get the community on board with their plans to launch. Help them find the right path into the ICP ecosystem for their project. But respect the work and commitment they have likely put in before they can here, and their likely good intentions.
But for the sake of this World Computer project can we please show newcomers some patience and understanding instead of treating them as outsiders undeserving of our respect.
And if you need a mental reset to achieve this, just remember that for the majority of you reading this, neither you nor I built this magnificent beast of a World Computer. But you know who did? Yes you do, and they are respecting your membership of this community by not throwing their weight around, although I guess some of them are sorely tempted when reading some of the posts in this forum.
Thank you @Gekctek for saying in far fewer words much of what I was trying to say just now. I couldn’t agree more and I am guessing that is also true for many other readers who somehow made it so far down this thread.
And after rereading my last post I realise now I slipped into grumpy Dad mode near the end, so my apologies to everyone for that.
I would prefer to see a sequence diagram with canisters & the L2. Otherwise, there is not much to review here.
Your AI tech may be amazing, but you also need to explain how the DAO is going to benefit from it.
Are you transferring all software rights to the DAO?
Can your network decide to disconnect from the IC after spending all funds?
How are you going to cryptographically or legally guarantee that the DAO is going to benefit from that tech? I think you need to bind the whole thing in such a way that you or anyone else can’t break that bond. Then having a DAO makes sense. That’s why that tiny arrow is not enough for me.
