The tiered setup you suggest would be great if we could do it! But unfortunately we can’t…
This is the first version of the SNS decentralisation sale (excluding the SNS1 test sale), and currently the options are very minimal.
The SNS sale options will grow and mature over time, but we can’t sit around and wait for it to be perfect before we launch, so we are going to launch and use the configuration options that are available to us right now.
Every configuration option we have selected can be disputed and there are pros and cons to raising or lowering each one.
Realistically, we think it is likely there may be 1 or 2 whales who decide to invest the maximum, and then the vast majority of people will invest smaller amounts. If we set the maximum amount a person can invest too low, it makes it much more unlikely that we hit our target of 1M ICP. We feel that the maximum of 100k reaches a good balance.
Additionally, by setting the minimum number of participants to 500, we ensure that the service is suitably decentralised. If the sale is snapped up by only a handful of whales, the sale will be invalidated and everyone will get refunded.
Thanks. It answers one question, which is that Dfinity has decided not to allow anybody else to install SNS canisters. The second one remains open: how does one ‘mandate’ Dfinity to do anything through an NNS vote?
This seems one more instance of what happens in governance proposals. We hope and pray Dfinity will agree to do what the community has proposed. It usually does, but only because no vote can get through if Dfinity is opposed. I know it can happen theoretically, but I don’t recall any actual instance where Dfinity voted against a proposal and it passed.
That is not actually ‘liquid democracy’ or any kind of democracy. And then people get upset when the crypto community calls the IC centralised…
So set it to 400icp max per anchor.
This is something like buying 10,000 chat tokens (approximately 0.002% of the 500million total initial supply).
100k icp can buy 2.5million chat tokens which about 0.5% of the 500 million initial supply.
This is not decentralization.
This is allowed to happen only when the openchat team knows that big centralized exchanges are about to buy the chat token.
It is a prearranged sale with no other option left to the team by the cexes.
Shortly, the end to end process of launching an SNS will be handled by a single NNS proposal.
But that functionality isn’t ready yet so the path to launch the OpenChat SNS is slightly different and has to involve a manual call being made by a Dfinity controlled principal to the SNS-Wasm canister.
Dfinity made the decision to give the SNS launch the green light now rather than wait for the ‘single proposal’ version to be complete since that would mean delaying again.
Each of the 3 devs will receive 5% of the total CHAT supply which will be locked into 5 neurons which vest over 4 years.
They each have a dissolve delay of 1 month but have vesting periods of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 years. Having a vesting period on a neuron is a new feature on neurons. A neuron which hasn’t vested yet can be used to vote but cannot be modified in any way.
By doing it this way we minimise the developer neurons’ voting power (1 month is the minimum required to vote in OpenChat), while also giving confidence to the community that the devs are sticking around for the long term.
Each dev also has an additional tiny neuron (4 CHAT, which is the minimum stake allowed) with 12 month dissolve delay which is the one they’ll use for voting.
If we set the max to 400 ICP we would have almost no chance of raising enough funds.
We have made no prearranged deals with anyone and we know of no individuals or groups who will be investing the maximum amount.
We haven’t spoken to any centralised exchanges either. CHAT can’t even be listed on centralised exchanges yet because ‘rosetta’ (which is how exchanges communicate with ledgers) hasn’t been implemented for the SNS ledger.
So I am fairly certain that no centralised exchanges will want to buy up any CHAT.
May I ask if this ‘rosetta’ is part of the roadmap? Is there any time plan? Because it is a kind of belief for many investors that CHAT will be able to go to Binance or Coinbase.
Hi everyone.
First of all, congrats to the Open Chat team and my best wishes to your upcoming SNS sale.
I think I understand the basic configurations and requirements of the sale.
I would like to also have a question if you don’t mind:
How Open Chat will compete with “free-of-charge” apps such as iMessage, messenger, etc. in the market, especially in terms of financial sustainability and mass adoption? And what is the business case of the CHAT token (beside the governance thing)? Many thanks.
So what you say is that there is a disbelief about the cap target.
On the other hand whitepaper seems pretty sure of possible mitigation 51% and how to avoid it.
The funds raised will be used to cover all costs incurred by OpenChat.
Funds can only be moved from the treasury by proposal.
We have a canister called the ‘CyclesDispenser’ which is in charge of topping up all of our top level canisters, and whenever it runs low on cycles it burns ICP from an account it controls into cycles. So every so often we will need to make a proposal to send ICP to its ledger account.
The salaries of the dev team will also need to be paid out of the treasury by proposal.
Currently there are only 3 of us in the team but having a large amount of funds in the treasury opens up the opportunity to grow the team and give good bounties out to contributors.
It seems to me the whole launch is less of a sale (since all the funding is gathered in a treasury) and more like offering others to join a boardroom in which the future of OC and it’s treasury will be determined. If that analogy is ok - How will the boardroom members communicate? Anything besides proposals?
