If I understood your ReadMe correctly, your extremely robust solution follows D-QUORUM. However, D-QUORUM missed even more votes than co.delta. You might want to troubleshoot further to close any gaps that might exist.
Follow up regarding this data:
Hey @Lorimer there was over a day left in the voting period on 5 of these proposals at the time I point out that co.delta and D-QUORUM had not vote yet. Why did these known neurons that you founded and influence not end up casting votes? Your followers lost a lot of rewards because of all these ABSTAIN votes. Were you able to identify the problem and will a solution be implemented? I’m sure your followers would like to know how this could happen, especially when you were given a heads up with plenty of time to correct the problem.
The Dfinity Foundation should eliminate this entire code review process and hire a dedicated team to handle these reviews. This situation is once again ridiculous and quite embarrassed for ICP.
I’ve been involved with DFINITY and the community since 2020, long before any of you were here, long before this kind of “politics” existed. So the fact that I work on Dragginz is equally making me biased as it makes you being the founder of CodeGov.
The issues I addressed were just an observation of how this evolved, and we both know that the removed node providers were not just “administrative cleanup.”
If “all clusters were never a secret,” why did it take thyassa’s investigation to bring them to light publicly? Why weren’t these connections and clusters mentioned in any Season 1 review reports if they were so obvious?
Most importantly - the claim that clusters weren’t “against any rules at the time” misses the point entirely. Reviewers receiving grants aren’t just supposed to check if rules are being followed - they’re supposed to identify potential risks and threats to network decentralization. That’s literally what reviewing for network integrity means.
It’s like doing a code review and saying “well, the code compiles and there are no build errors, so the logic must be fine.” Would you accept that level of review for production code? Of course not - you’d expect reviewers to catch potential security vulnerabilities, logic flaws, and architectural issues even if the code technically “follows the rules” and builds successfully
If reviewers missed massive clusters of connected node providers that pose risks to decentralization during Season 1, how does that demonstrate the quality review work that justifies receiving Season 2 grants? Good governance means identifying risks before they become problems, not just checking boxes.
My question remains unanswered: Why reward reviewers who didn’t identify these decentralization risks while excluding those who actually did the work to expose them?
Interesting spin. So he left CodeGov for “political” reasons but just happened to start exposing all the node provider fraud that CodeGov missed during Season 1 right after? That’s quite the coincidence.
You’re right, he didn’t explicitly say “CodeGov did a bad job reviewing.” He just… demonstrated it by exposing massive sybil attacks and fraudulent node providers that somehow went completely unnoticed during all those paid Season 1 reviews.
As for “Didn’t Alex get included this season?” - yeah, co.delta only got included at the last minute AFTER people started raising hell on the forum about them being excluded. They weren’t initially chosen by DFINITY - it took community outrage to get the people who actually exposed the fraud included. Meanwhile, CodeGov was selected from day one despite missing everything in Season 1.
This isn’t about personal dislike - it’s about questioning why DFINITY’s first choice was to reward proven failure (CodeGov in Season 1) while excluding proven success (the people who actually exposed the risks), until community pressure forced them to reconsider.
It’s pointless to argue now. Both co.delta and CodeGov got the grants in the end, so let’s focus on doing good reviews together and actually catching issues this time around. That’s what matters for the network’s security.
You win. I didn’t learn about DFINITY and the IC until Genesis day May 2021. I also agree you and I both bring our own biases to the table. By the way, I appreciate your civilized response. I understand where you are coming from and simply disagree.
I disagree. They actually were just administrative cleanup. They were initiated by people who didn’t know the history of the node provider onboarding work process or the agreements that were in place with node providers at the start of the network. Hence, they were sensationalized to the point that allegations became fact in the mind of the community who didn’t know the history.
They were mentioned…by the people who are recognized as clusters, by DFINITY acknowledging that they knew about the relationships we now call clusters, and by the reviewers in their reports.
Below are the expectations that DFINITY outlined for reviewers for the Participant Management and Node Admin topics. Your expectations and these requirements are misaligned. There were 985 proposals for this topic over the last 11 months. Therefore, this grant paid out $11 per review and the team grant size was funded with an expected time commitment that averaged to 12 minutes for each review. Of course, each reviewer spent far more time than this on this proposal topic due to all the unnecessary controversy that was created at certain points in time. It was an underfunded topic with an oversized political expectation. CodeGov and Aviate both did very well in this environment and DFINITY recognized us for it by voting to adopt our applications for Season 2. Like I said, they were in the trenches with us and recognized that we were able to filter through the noise and make evidence based decisions.
We didn’t miss massive clusters and there were no risks to decentralization during Season 1. These were sensationalize claims of conspiracy that didn’t exist. Even if you don’t believe me because of my biases as the founder for CodeGov, surely we can all agree that DFINITY has the best interests of the IC in mind. If there really were risks to decentralization and/or CodeGov and Aviate did a poor job with our reviews, then why would DFINITY vote for us to receive the grants in Season 2 out of 5 applicants? They had no obligation to do so. These are people who created the network and know the history. They value contributions from reviewers and they recognize when people know what they are talking about. They voted for us because they know we are the most qualified for the job and we don’t create unnecessary conspiracies, yet we are not afraid to tell them when something is wrong or we think they made a bad decision. They also appreciate our civilized approach to governance on these topics. I’m not at all surprised that they voted for us for Season 2. However, I am surprised that they were persuaded by some higher level politics to also vote for the team that created the unnecessary conspiracy theories during Season 1.
CodeGov has always been controlled by me and every team member knows it including Alex. I set the Followees for each proposal topic and the CodeGov vote is cast by their consensus. I provide administrative oversight to ensure we always vote and will cast a manual vote when we cannot reach natural consensus, which rarely happens. My manual vote is always according to the majority at the time of voting and typically happens on the last day of the voting period. This is how CodeGov has always worked and it’s never been a secret or hidden from anyone.
If you are talking about Synapse, then it’s inaccurate to say that I have 100% control. Our Followees for the Neuron Management proposal topic granted me a hotkey a few months ago so I can trigger a manual vote when we don’t reach natural consensus on NNS proposals. My manual vote is always according to the majority of our Folllowees at the time of voting and typically happens on the last day of the voting period. Alex didn’t like it and lobbied against it, but he lost. The hotkey was granted by natural consensus on a Neuron Management proposal. Every change in the Synapse configuration since then has also occurred by Neuron Management proposal, which requires consensus among our 11 Followees. When Alex was forcibly removed from Synapse recently, it was done by natural consensus from a Neuron Management proposal topic in which almost everyone voted to remove him from the group. Ironically, Alex is the one who lobbied hard about not granting a hotkey due to the potential for a $5 wrench attack. Yet, he is the one who publicly doxxed this information and violated the trust of the Synapse team members within our private chat group. He dug his own grave…all I did was initiate the proposal. We have every right to manage the Synapse neuron however we feel is best as a group and that is what we do as a group.
I don’t think there’s much point in arguing, since everyone has their own vision of how “political parties” should work within the NNS. CO.DELTA emphasizes collaboration with little formal hierarchy, although @Lorimer naturally plays a leadership role there. CodeGov, on the other hand, feels more like a team shaped around @wpb, with a somewhat more top-down approach.
In my view, every group needs leaders for coordination - there will always be individuals who stand out more than others. What really matters, though, is that EVERYONE has the opportunity to contribute, can be held accountable by EVERYONE regardless of connections or background, and receives fair compensation based on their SKILLS.
As described, the VNG program is a pilot where the final word and funding ultimately rest with DFINITY. Without a long-term, inclusive solution, ongoing divisions will always feel unfair. That’s why we should focus on verifying people’s skills, not speculating about whether someone has good or bad intentions - that’s what a truly trustless environment is supposed to be about.
