// WATERNEURON // ICRC-1 Ledger Change request : adding an endpoint

General DFINITY
1

Dear all,

Long story short, here are the facts :

  • 100 ICP has been accidentally sent to the nICP ledger
  • They have to be sent back to their original wallet
  • WaterNeuron leader do not want to make the canister change required for “security reasons” stating that they want to keep original ledger fork from Dfinity.

So here are the unfortunates issues that can be interpreted :

  1. Leaders of DAO have such fear about creating a fork in the ledger and make change ( here to send back those ICP ) .
  2. Ledger aren’t humain mistake proof ( why can they keep ICP they aren’t supposed to get )

Here are several ways to solve this :

  1. Waterneuron DAO currently is having the control of the ICP can simply keep those 100 ICP and send the same amount to the original wallet
  2. Waterneuron leader fork the ledger, add the code required for the transfer, and switch back to original fork. ( This would prevent any special maintenance cost due to differences )
  3. The foundation provide a new version of the ledger allowing sending ICP ( adding and endpoint to the ICRC-1 ) or preventing them to receive ICP ( with proactive action ).
  4. A mix of 3 and 2 where the foundation provide a safe code allowing the sending to occure.
  5. Any suggestions ?

Keep in mind that with ICP price rising, this issue will also be more important.

Thank you for your time,

Cheers

2

I understand that it isn’t nice to loose the ICP but I think there is some basic knowledge missing here,

Firstly “the leaders of the DAO” don’t own the ledger canister, the DAO does, so they has as much say in this as their voting power gives them, it’s up with the DAO to make such descisions

Regarding preventing such transactions, the ledger is just an other canister with some methods that obey by a standard (icrc), if somebody want to make an other canister with ledger like features, how are you going to prevent the user sending tokens to it while it might be used for one of the functionalities?

Next up, if you send your tokens to a wrong address on ethereum it’s also gone, same logic applies here.

As for the suggestion; do small transactions first before sending a large sum.

2 Likes
3

Indeed basic understanding of the situation is missing, let me correct you :

The ICP isnt lost

You can always try to make me believe the DAO owner cant pass such a proposal. But that’s is not going to happen.

I explained above several suggestion to deal with this kind of situation, maybe you should read it again.

Again its not gone so repeating it wont make me believe it more, it will just show the world how biased you are in not helping to solve this.

If none here is willing to help, I will probably do a prediction market and bet that this transaction ( returning the money ) will not occure within 10 years. Once the icp price will 10x or 100x it could become dealthy convincing, maybe they will change their mind.

4

You are right, it’s not gone, you just lost control of it because you send it to a wrong address.

Good luck :+1:t2:

5

So I sent 10 sneeds to the sneed governance canister maybe a year ago and i haven’t gotten them back. The true answer here is “gg no re”

Sorry buddy lrn2 send txs next time

2 Likes
6

And guess what, in EU ( and probably worldwide ) when some funds are sent to the wrong adresse, the people in charge HAVE to give it back.

So Enzo and Léo can always try to hide behind their* DAO. Since the DAO follow their neuron ( and would anyway have no reason to disagree with this transfer ) they should do it.

Obviously they dont want to :

  • Been ignored on my direct messages
  • They try to hide behind the DAO
  • They don’t support me ( their silence is deafening while they know I post here)

I think it will be very entertaining, in long term, to see what happens to doxxed people that keep themself between someone ( or a prediction market ) and the funds.

7

Hey Doudi,

I understand your frustration, you copied the wrong principal and sent 100ICP to it, tx.

I’m sure the WaterNeuron community wants to see you recover the funds, and would be more than willing to help. However, I don’t think we should fork the IRCRC-1 ledger canister from DFINITY. If the ICRC1 ledger canister gets a new function that allows mis-sent funds to be sent back to their origin, we can then make a proposal to upgrade the nICP ledger and you can get your funds back.

WaterNeuron currently has five “known neuron”:

  • CodeGov: 203312480b4aeef877f393f376533f4fdcaa477412ca1ae83abd8e897c0e726f
    • The WTN Team neuron follows CodeGov for all NNS proposals.
  • LORIMER: ffd85295e02216d317ea49d3b2578f4e0e0adc44ecf7d920a06cae788ca43d97
  • D-QUORUM: c0b121b52cca921791b87350244029a9d128883e22576b528f2214489a1d3384
  • Krzysztof Zelazko: 8dbd5235a0f39c0aefbe9bf365e6406ba85250eff5127258a665af88e3b0c694
  • WTN Team: 5131d35fb19a10cfba23f3162f48f059b95c2ad60cbe39a2017f88f51537bbb3

As much as I would like to own more WTN, the early-contributors do not have enough VP as it stands.

Screenshot 2025-01-06 at 11.26.01
Screenshot 2025-01-06 at 11.26.011346×784 13.1 KB

We had lengthy discussions in the WaterNeuron Telegram with you and other community members such as @Lorimer, @tiago89, and @quint. Here is a screenshot to prove it, along with the message link:

image
image1504×1916 230 KB

3 Likes
8

This was after been ignored after understanding the issue. Find below message from 2 week ago. It’s only after that I started to write on the public discussion of Waterneuron since you didn’t show any intention to help on private message.

Léo didnt even care to say anything. I also wrote him both twitter and Telegram.

Not sure why all those beautiful people wouldn’t be following your 5 known neurons to optimise their rewards. You just need to make one proposal and it passes ( and you know it right ? Its just an excuse that have no real reason to be here tbh )
The only thing is that you dont want to make a fork - claiming some security reasons -

Great it’s time to open the discussion with Dfinity to make it happen ! I am sure they are also willing to help precious SNS’s leading the ecosystem make their community happy.

But somehow the fact that I have been ignored before makes me doubt your ( and Léo ) sincerity.

I understand this is not a kind of work that is pleasant to do, it just has to be done.

Since you like screenshot here find below in French 2 weeks ago. On twitter its even older and don’t try to say that you were not on Telegram, there are lots of message of you every day on the Waterneuron public channel…

WhatsApp Image 2025-01-06 at 19.35.35
WhatsApp Image 2025-01-06 at 19.35.35738×1282 265 KB

WhatsApp Image 2025-01-06 at 19.35.34
WhatsApp Image 2025-01-06 at 19.35.34742×1292 242 KB

9

@Doudi the WaterNeuron dev team are busy people with a lot to juggle. Just because you don’t get a response immediately, it doesn’t mean that you’re being ignored.

Regarding the pressure you’re trying to place on the WaterNeuron DAO to resolve your issue, as others have pointed out this pressure is misplaced. The ledge canister is part of the SNS suit maintained by DFINITY. SNS upgrades are handled by a process where new deployments are first blessed by NNS proposal. This is how the SNS infrastructure has been designed from the start.

What is an SNS? | Internet Computer

SNSs are provided as a system functionality by the Internet Computer Protocol in that the code for the SNS canisters is maintained by the Internet Computer Protocol […] More concretely, this means that the NNS community approved the original SNS canisters’ code and continuously approves new improved SNS versions.

10

If you are not adding constructive comment, you can refrain from writing here

The following quote from your link exactly explain that they can adapt their Ledger, did you even read it ?

Citation A SNS that is self-deployed, manually upgraded, and hosted on an application subnet. Any SNS community can choose to deploy the SNS code, which is open source, on an application subnet. They can then choose to follow the blessed upgrade path or deviate from this path

For that you don’t even need this quote, just look who is the controler.

It has been more than two week and I have not gotten any feedback like “We will work something out, just be patient” while they have all the infos and the power to do it.

11

I believe you’re confusing different types of SNS. A ‘self-deployed’ SNS is very different to a ‘system-provided’ SNS. WaterNeuron is a system-provided SNS.

SNS Introduction | Internet Computer

12

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer you. All things considered, it’s very useful since it makes this post in the top of the forum again and provide more visibility.

The NNS provide few path for SNS management, those are not TYPES.
In the end of the day, the DAO has anytime the right to keep the path or change it for some needs.

You just need to look who is the owner/controler of the caniser, Spoiler : its not dfinity.
The story ends here, maybe you should learn more how things works.

13

I wasn’t aware of this. Are you sure?

Are you familiar with the concept of blessing, and how the SNS DAO can decide to upgrade to one of those blessed versions? I’m not sure what the point of NNS-blessed versioning would be if it didn’t need adhering to.

As expected, the canister is controlled by the WaterNeuron Root canister, which is also part of the SNS suite mantained by DFINITY. The WaterNeuron DAO can upgraded to NNS-blessed versions, but it cannot apply arbitrary changes to the code (that would allow them to bypass all sorts of SNS framework restrictions). The dapp canisters themselves are different (they’re not part of the SNS suite). This, at least, is my understanding. Every day’s a school day, so I’m happy to be corrected.

14

Thank you for your question again,

The WaterNeuron Root canister, is only updated because the WaterNeuron DAO Allows it to.

The WaterNeuron DAO has TOTAL CONTROL over the canister as explained earlier.

The explication can’t be more clear.

15

Hi both,
I think that you might both be right and there is just a confusion about which ledger this is about.
Indeed, the SNS ledger that is part of the SNS framework can only be upgraded to wasms that have been approved by the NNS. The SNS DAO cannot decide to divert from these versions.
This is explained in more detail here.

However, I think in this project there is more than one ledger canister and this is about the nICP ledger which is not a SNS framework canister.

4 Likes
16

Thanks for clarifying @lara. That makes sense, I had the wrong end of the stick. My apologies @Doudi

1 Like
17

Its now officially one month that this issue has been shared with Enzo and Léo.
About 15 days in this forum.

So far nothing changed.

I am really curious how long its going to take to a code that can evolve over time to just add a function to send back the funds. And how much pressure is needed so that finally the leader of the DAO will do what is right.

If they can’t even do that, maybe they don’t really understand the code used for Waterneuron.
So would you really trust them with you hard earned funds ?

18

It’s not the DAO’s responsibility to be held accountable for your mistake. If you want to change it, fork the ledger code, add what you need and put it up for proposal.

And if you can’t yourself, get in contact with somebody that can, but might cost you more then what you lost.

Stop pointing fingers and take action yourself

2 Likes
19

In the EU, USA, and Switzerland, the law is quite clear—funds that were sent accidentally must be returned. The key questions now are:

  • How long will it take?
  • Who will ensure it happens?

Let’s take a closer look at the situation together.

Time and the law are on my side. For example, the longer this takes, the more interest I will be entitled to claim. The founders of Waterneuron are publicly known, and I am carefully documenting the situation with their names, screenshots, photos, dates, and relevant links. The responsibility lies with them.

Furthermore, Dfinity is also publicly known. Just as they took action to remove canisters hosting copyrighted content, they have both the power—and therefore the responsibility—to address this issue as well.

Another concerning aspect is that the Waterneuron team has attempted to ignore my messages, claiming they are unable to update the canister to resolve the issue. This raises questions about both their ethics and their ability to manage the Waterneuron infrastructure. Delaying action is not in their best interest, as I will continue to bring attention to this matter.

While some may try to justify their inaction or hide behind the DAO, we both know that any well-intentioned proposal from their side would pass without issue—something that wouldn’t happen as easily if I were to propose it myself.

Ultimately, this issue will only grow over time, and I am genuinely eager to see how it unfolds.

@dominicwilliams if canister are safe and easily to update, maybe you can help your ex fellow employee to solve this. Would appreciate.

BTW : As ICP price will ultimately rise, dont expect that I give up on this, it will just get bigger. SO @rem.codes its nice to help your friends but that wont help :slight_smile: thanks for helping me raise awareness on this by answering, this post need to be regularly on the top of the forum.