Like I said, I’m totally open to being wrong here—I just wanted to bring more transparency to the surface.
From a quick glance, actions like this could look really concerning to new builders or entities considering ICP. That’s why I felt it was important to start this discussion—to see if things could be resolved, improved upon, or handled in a way that helps the ICP ecosystem move forward instead of backward, like @tiago89 was trying to do.
Obviously, I don’t know the full story—and that’s exactly why these forums exist: to ask questions, gain clarity, and hear from all sides.
I appreciate your responses, and I truly hope for the best—not just for this project, but for the entire ICP ecosystem.
I think at this point everyone understand Borovan intentions. He lost lot of money, he is looking for escape goats to blame and want to steal SNS projects treasury so he can get his money back.
Keep in mind, Adam/Borovan was the one who funded swamp projects and with his actions, he drained neuron fund.
@tiago89 These projects can survive for a few weeks until the whole multi-DAO attack web gets untangled. If their VCs can’t send them food, we can all gather some tokens. Just need an address, nearby online grocery and a wishlist.
Saying we don’t need NFIDW because we already have a good wallet like Oisy doesn’t really add up. Most major ecosystems have multiple wallets, and that kind of variety usually helps adoption, not hurts it. More options can push development forward and serve different types of users. So “we already have one” doesn’t seem like a strong reason to shut down another entirely.
The point I’m trying to get at is—we actually need more wallets, not fewer. Instead of shutting them down, why not guide them into something better through the DAO or community feedback? That’s how ecosystems grow. Right now, ICP needs expansion and adoption more than heavy pruning. We can improve what’s here instead of discarding it outright.
And about the accusations—if there are real concerns, it would help the whole community to see specifics. Vague warnings like “just wait and it’ll become obvious” don’t provide a foundation for serious action. If something harmful is happening, transparency and evidence are the best way to deal with it.
Just trying to get a clearer picture here, based on facts.
Democracy has its flaws and this is one of those. There’s never a perfect solution. What the rest of the DAO should do is accumulate enough voting power to keep the DAO alive, otherwise, there’s clearly nothing that could be done in this scenario.
Amazon or Google can come after ICP any day and if we don’t come together to defend ICP, then they can take ICP down because DFINITY’s voting power alone won’t be enough.
For a DAO to function properly, every eligible
person must participate in it. None of the proposals that has been countered on NFID wallet has happened with 100% of the NFID DAO total voting power. It has been mostly 60-70%… the remaining % of voting power, if utilised, could turn the ship to the direction the monopolistic whale doesn’t want it to go.
NFID wallet DAO should wake up and stop being lazy to participate in the governance of the project. I mean, if you ain’t gonna vote, why did you even own a neuron in the first place?
If every votes in a DAO or no one votes its the same as not no voting is actually a vote saying I don’t care.
I will harp about this there is a difference between people having the option to have an opinion on a subject and vote according and making people vote on everything even if they don’t understand and then have them either vote randomly or to vote copying another person or org due to loyalty and trust.
The DAO’s need more granularity in voting structure
Also we need to define the purpose of an SNS, is it to raise money or to create decentralised projects.
What is the route for projects that dont want full decentralisation to raise funds?
Just use the awesome tech to make a ckBTC based service, outside of decentralisation, ICP is still an easy, great solution to create an online bitcoin business.
By not voting owner of that VP is waiting for project to fail, than later he buys all tokens he needs to drain treasury. @borovan stop this nonsense, if you dont do deal with NFID, you both lose all funds. Treasury funds need to be staked with different time periods. Later when NFID is fully developed, stakers can share revenue what it generates.
You can still use an SNS to reword stakeholders even if you retain majority control. You can immutable contracts. Say I want to reward animators and over creatives working on the pokebots animation, I can set up contracts to pay them royalties in the form of SNS tokens. The contracts can be made so that the contracts can be annulled by a majority stakeholder. The tokens can be bought by anyone who wants a share of future profits.
I disagree, when I joined ICP, the SNS was sold to me as a decentralised solution.
If you put centralised services within it, you reduce the value of the other SNS services as users looking for decentralisation may find centralised services and be put off.
If you need control to build, animate etc - you are not ready to decentralise into the SNS.
More thought will be required when using DAO products to achieve composability on ICP. Without a clear method to assess the long-term viability of those DAOs, there is a risk introducing brittle dependencies that could compromise the integrity and continuity of a Dapp. Too little emphasis has been placed on building resilient dApps that can withstand real-world governance challenges and assessment tools do not appear to be readily available to highlight this risk. There will always be those who are motivated to change Dapps for good or bad. Whether it is good or bad will be based on the perspective of whomever is looking at it. Understanding there is a lack of tools to monitor this risk across the eco-system is a useful outcome of this whole concerning issue.
