Validations: Register Known Neuron

It seems to me that it is important to coordinate a place to make minimal revisions when voting for “Register Known Neuron”.

I open the topic to see if we ask for a place within the forum to discuss each particular case or what seems best to do.

An example of a current proposal 87656 ( )


Is the company real?

Are we going to ask all the neurons to be in the forum?

How do you think about a future when dozens of neurons want to register as known neurons?

Are we going to have global minimum validations for this process?

I await ideas, opinions, whatever you want to comment on this topic. Thank you very much !


I just posted this, I think bare minimum if you want to be a leader in community you should introduce your self.

1 Like

Oh because you believe that a named neuron is per say a representative of a community in the very beginning ? I dont think it has to be the case, people could be sharing their ideas and vision and then community will back up their vote… or not !

#1 - You are saying the chicken was here before the egg -

#2 - You discreditate others because they dont believe in #1

#3 - You provide random self-made invented limitating requirement :

  • ample time for deliberating, what is enough, 1 day ? 10 days ?
  • choosing a platform, why would that be all in one place ?

To justify that you are voting no for something that have totally no consequences ( What is Saurons named neuron destructive power again ? 0 )

To wrap up all this in a understandable manner :
If Sauron wanted to have the destructive power of a neuron, he would just call himself Halbrand in the forum of your choice and during the duration of your choice.

Conclusion : What you suggest do not work and is barely useful, its a waste of time. I hope you spend more time than that thinking about tokeneconomics.

All opinions are my own.

1 Like

There’s already some precedent for proposals to exist as a forum post for a minimum of 1 week before being submitted.

Perhaps there’s an issue with that not being socialized very much. I think some UI changes in the NNS or other tools could help.

A counter argument is that someone unfamiliar with the 1 week deliberation period hasn’t been involved in many previous discussions, which could be an indicator of a number of things.

For example, someone recently submitted a proposal to register a named neuron and they turned out to be an imposter.

I think more time to get to know people and ask questions about proposals is a good thing.


So far my findings are that CF Ventures appears to be real but the Twitter account and motion proposal may have been created by someone trying to impersonate them.

The Twitter account linked in the motion proposal was created on October 20th, 2022 (1 day ago).

It links to (which has been around a long time according to except that it refers to CF Ventures as Cohn Family Trust.

In contrast, the Twitter handle of “CommunityFundVC” suggests that the “CF” in “CF Ventures” is meant to represent “Community Fund” instead of “Cohn Family”.

Thats fair.

Could you please compare the stakes of a normal governance proposal and its consequences and the one about creating a named neuron ?

If you find the conclusion that creating a named neuron have nothing armful, do you think all those constraints have reasons to be applied ?

Do you think we should reject this proposal? It sounds like the twitter handle is meant to mislead since it is not consistent with the website.

1 Like

At this point I think it looks misleading.

I’ve reached out via email to the people mentioned on the website but only gotten an out of office reply so far.

1 Like

We should reject all proposals that are not linked to a platform where we can ask questions. I would rather we require dfinity forum but any forum would be better. Bare minimum man. The standards are so low

1 Like

One could argue that a proposal to create a named neuron, which has something actionable built in to it, is therefore more consequential than a motion proposal which may never effect any change.

I think that becoming a named neuron gives people a platform and as a community we probably want to make sure we aren’t enabling people who seem to be acting in bad faith or misleading people to gain a following.


I agree. I will vote to reject.

I expressed additional thoughts in my post on Taggr.

1 Like

I got a response via email.

Paul - this is not a legitimate listing. You are correct that someone is impersonating CF Ventures. It is fraud.


Thank you for your comments. I try to make a summary of conclusions.

Regarding the specific case: Possible fraud, rejection.

Regarding general validations: Request that all “Register Known Neuron” be in the forum in principle and that a minimum of 1 week be established to make the proposal, if not fulfilled, it is rejected. That time is given so that the proposer makes himself known and validates his identity in some way.
Be it a single person or a company.

Also to take the view of what kyliux says, it is true that we have to think in some more general way. Think when there are hundreds of neurons that ask for the same thing, what steps must be followed? Should we write it and publish it before they make the proposal?
Another point of view, @kyliux, you have to understand that what they say (@cryptoisgood // @paulyoung // @wpb) they say so that there is no fraud or false identity. If the requirements are very low, it can happen.

I was unfamiliar with the 7 day period, please excuse me for that. I will make sure any future proposals I make have that period.

As it stands, 87478 and Internet Computer Network Status are both mine. The linked is for the named neuron proposal.

I am aware that my first proposal was met with hostility, including calls to jail me or confiscate my ICP. 87478 will, of course, not pass. It did make an important statement and spawned a lot of discussion, so I think it was valuable and worth the 10 ICP.

1 Like