[URGENT] Matched Funding - Neuron Fund contribution in SNS swaps - Misleading Information


For attention of DFINITY team; + those repsonsible for the Matched Funding proposal:

The new matched funding is incredibly misleading and has likely derailed our SNS swap.
The Matched Funding article states how the Neuron Fund will contribute to the swap according to a Funding curve.

However, nowhere in the article does it state that this contribution would not form part of the contribution up to the minimum target. Instead, the article alludes to needing to reach certain fixed ICP targets in order to receive matched funding from the Neuron Fund.

The change in rules now requires the full minimum target to be reached before any NF contribution is calculated or allocated. WHY IS THIS NOT MADE CLEAR?

It is incredibly disappointing that one set of rules which benefitted SNS teams (many of whom have delivered no value since SNS/exploited the process for their own financial gain) has now been altered without adequate or clear documentation - harming the prospects of teams who now wish to raise funding via an SNS.

What will be done to remedy this?



Sounds like a miss in the documentation, but… there is SNS checklist and people are supposed to launch their SNS locally with sns-testing repo. It has a step by step tutorial that launches your sns.yaml and simulates the launch. You can see it slowly progressing and get a clear understanding of how it works.

1 Like

I’m fascinated by your SNS because of the problem it solves, but I don’t understand why the “minimum” amount was set to 400k ICP and you complain that you won’t raise funds now. Regardless of whether an NF participates in an SNS swap or not, the minimum amount should be a truly minimum amount… and not excessive. You could simply set it to a reasonable level. And the maximum amount? I don’t know if any maximum should exist at all, because would any SNS disdain additional funds beyond the max? This is what I think is worth considering and changing in the future.

Thanks, yes - we did test locally. Our error was assuming this field was the same as the previous “min_icp” field, as it operated the same role during testing.

The documentation outlines how funds will be distributed according to how much direct participation occurs during the swap. It does not make clear that the Neuron Fund does not participate in the swap.

The result of this is e.g. if we were to raise 399k ICP from community participants, we would receive 0 in matched funding, as we would have missed the minimum target by 1k ICP…

Perhaps, the team can see why this is potentially not an optimal solution.

# Minimum amount of ICP from direct participants. This amount is required for
    # the swap to succeed. If this amount is not achieved, the swap will be
    # aborted (instead of committed) when the due date/time occurs.
    # Must be smaller than or equal than `maximum_direct_participation_icp`.
    minimum_direct_participation_icp: 400_000 tokens

Please see reply below, but no - we felt comfortable raising at a 400k minimum, expecting that to mean a combination of community participation and matched funding from the Neuron Fund (at a close to 55/45 ratio).

As you can see, with this current setup, we would need to raise the full 400k ICP from the community before receiving any contribution from the Neuron Fund. And the swap would fail, should we receive any less than 400k from community participants not including the Neuron Fund

Of course, we could still hit this goal, but the intent was never to raise a minimum of 400,000 ICP from the community for the swap to pass.

So next time you need to set the minimum threshold to a level like Querio, if you don’t manage to raise the funds. But I hope you get that 400k ICP funding.

1 Like

And if you get 400k ICP, you will also instantly get the maximum NF contribution.
Well, you can relaunch. I doubt the NNS can do anything about it now - modifying canisters during launch to change their configuration sounds dangerous.

As an investor in Trax, I remain optimistic about you meeting current goals.
Should that not happen, I look forward to the relaunch.

Hi @tatruso

we shared this information upfront.
Three weeks ago we highlighted that the matched funding framework is up for voting (see below) and shared a link to a forum post with more details.

The provided link contained detailed information on the matched funding framework, including a description of the participation targets focusing only on direct participation.


Thanks @bjoernek - you are right, you did share this information with us but we read the official documentation as opposed to the Forum post. Perhaps, the documentation and Matched Funding docs page can be updated to make this clearer?

To clarify, this is what we found confusing:

“The scheme correlates the fund participation with the level of direct participation, for more information see here.”

We then referred to the matched funding graph:

From this it appears that, as ICP is contributed by direct participants, matched funding is allocated to the swap according to the Matching Function.

The documentation and matched funding do not mention that no ICP is contributed until the minimum direct participation is reached, instead it states thresholds at which the NF will contribute. Obviously, this is clarified in the Forum post you attached but it would be good to make this abundantly clear in the official docs so no other teams make the same mistake going forwards.


Thank you @tatruso, this is good feedback.
I will have a look on how to emphasize this more in various places on the Wiki.