I would like to clarify one potential misunderstanding on the connection of the minimum direct commitment and the NF contribution:
In the first version of the NF framework the minimum direct commitment and the NF contribution had indeed a strong connection as the NF would contribute the full amount once the minimum direct commitment was reached. As a consequence, it was requested (see here) that the NF contribution should not be more than 50% of minimum direct commitment.
In the meantime the NF framework has evolved. In particular, it moved from a fixed ICP amount in the fundās contribution to SNS swaps to a more dynamic model that scales with direct participation, picking up market signals.
As a consequence, projects have to reache certain thresholds before the NF even starts to contribute. For more details, see the according forum post here.
Hence, from an NF perspective the minimum direct commitment is not relevant anymore and thus from an NF perspective there is no issue with the 100 minimum commitment target for this particular SNS.
Having said that it would be still interesting to know why the dev team for this project chose such a broad range from 100 ICP to 1M ICP as the funding range. I will leave to the dev team to comment on that.
Iām the dev team. I personally think if you take the time to look at the project in detail then youāll see how Iāve clearly outlined how I acheive success in every area that usually concerns the ICP community.
The reason for the spread on the amount is I needed a max, an @Accumulating.icp suggested a discounted cash forecast to justify a value.
I chose the min because it doesnāt matter what I raise, the project goes ahead as planned, I just may have to continue to write all the code. Itās not like I would let a year of code, 3 months of successful gameplay and building the community go to waste. Any failure on the min would just mean coming back again for a less amount and I really donāt have that kind of time, the new season starts in August and people need to be picking their teams as soon as this Premier League season ends.
I can understand the frustration that the neuron fund commitment is so high but in all honestly I didnāt think it was going to be an issue as I didnāt think Iād raise as little as 30K ICP (deluded I know).
Anyway, I hope that sheds light on the figures, any questions just ask.
I have no negative remarks about the development team as theyāve been actively engaged with the community for a long time.
There are 2 aspects about the SNS
We can recommend that the foundation to reconsider the logic behind maximum and minimum caps or anything to make it tougher to prevent such issues in the future.
Another aspect is as we enter a bull market, Simplifying the process can attract a larger number of projects/communities to SNS, potentially increasing the risk of scams. However, itās important to acknowledge that creating a system completely immune to scams or fraud is unlikely. As attention and community grow, the possibility of encountering scams also increases.
I understand from where you are coming from. What is unclear to me is how you would determine such a range. For example, if you launch an SNS meme coin project, a very broad range might make sense, as the participation would be driven mainly by sentiment.
Now the first impression of this project is a scam. The developer said that people should study his project carefully. Yes, I checked, the minimum goal written in the proposal is 500,000 ICP. But it is actually 100 ICP, and because of the unreasonable design of SNS, this project has easily passed the minimum goal of 100 ICP, and CF participated in 33K ICP. Doesnāt this give people the impression of a scam? I donāt know why it can pass, because there is no history from the proposal, and there is no discussion record in this thread.
Also, someone has been reporting me and trying to hide the content I posted. I donāt know what he wants to hide.
Thatās fair enough mate, I didnāt realise I would be penalised for basically saying any amount. I would say that if any developer has spent 11 months coding an SNS service and you said what would you want to raise, the honest answer is probably any amount. Itās not like there is any alternative for a decentralised service.
Going forwards Iām sure projects will learn from my mistake.
What Iāve built doesnāt feel like a joke to me but I guess itās all subjective.
I think a lot of people want to avoid 2 things with SNS projects. Scams and Useless projects. This is understandable as SNS projects are very much the face of the ICP ecosystem and I believe that the service nervous system comes with a bit of prestige. In a decentralized world, like the sphere us IC folks live in, we want people to be free but not too free it seems. I think what youāre saying is right in that in all reality someone starting a DAO would really want any support they can get to get it off the ground but I do think that it is the responsibility of the developers to equitably launch their project. And only they know if theyāve done that. Iām excited for OpenFPL. Iām not much of a soccer fan but I think this will be a massive addition to the SNS and IC as a whole.
Hi, Iām just wondering why I didnāt get my fpl token after the swap status is completed showing on nns? And my ICP participated in is gone as well. ? It didnāt show in my account . Nothing and I pretty staked in for 22.2 ICP. Help!
Yeah, thatās right. Iām a newbie to ICP nns. Had some fun these two days, still have a lot to learn. I staked part of my ICP for 8 years and waiting for the spawn neuronā:rofl:. Followed a couple guys to do the vote for me.
exciting times ahead.