🍉 WaterNeuron decentralization

[Lorimer]

@borovan

Anybody else from Synapse want to tell us

I suspect everybody knows where I stand →

The Destabiliser - Blockchain Detectives Needed!

I think this is the case. I think the distinction between nICP and WTN is understood by those discussing this. What they’re getting at is that if you assume one person, or a united clique, own >50% of WTN SNS VP, then the VP of everyone else in that DAO will never ever make a difference on the NNS (even though that’s what they bought their WTN for if they are taking their role seriously, which they should be). As far as the vote on the NNS is concerned, your WTN VP will never make a single bit …

Feature Request: Granular NNS Voting

Having thought about this further I think it’s useful to decouple the problems we’re trying to address. Follower-based VP Follower-based VP is a separate concern, and there are all sorts of solutions to this which sit outside of WaterNeuron itself. More and better quality governance participants for followers to follow is the solution with regard to any potential for centralisation in this respect. Better visibility of how much follower-based VP known neurons already have is another way to sign…