Who allows DFINITY employees to represent ICP officials?


Name: ICP (“Official”)

Introduction: ICP (“Official”) is the official community owned and managed by the DFINITY Foundation, the main developer behind ICP

Is DFINITY building a public blockchain or a consortium chain?

Is IC a private chain of DFINITY?

Does DFINITY have a new definition of public blockchain?

I know DFINITY is a major contributor to IC and I also know that DFINITY holds 21% of voting power, But what right do employees from DFINITY have to represent and control an public blockchain official community without a vote from NNS? How is this different from fraud? Is it because the voting power we get is a pile of air?

Maybe someone at DFINITY has no idea what a public blockchain means? Why can someone build a public blockchain without understanding what a public blockchain is? Shouldn’t this be a basic requirement to join DFINITY?


I think you meant to say that DFINITY holds 21% of total voting power instead of 21% of neurons.


I’m not sure if this helps (or is correct), however, I had similar questions at first, then I realized (or focused on) a major part of what I was overlooking. That being, DFINITY is the Non-profit that is the biggest contributor to the ICP coin. They are distinctly different entities though. So, the IC network was created by DFINITY and then is open to the public. However, that doesn’t mean we have any say in DFINTY as an organization only the public blockchain they created. However, the blockchain itself is public, the code is public, and any one of us could start building and deploying projects if we had the cycles, time, energy, and sustainable resources to do so. This is what I believe the concept of a public blockchain aims to achieve. Thus, why I feel they (the DFINITY foundation) are also slowly distancing themselves from the ICP coin and IC and making it a known distinction.

For example, right now there is around 55% staked overall correct? Then if the community (or individual buyers) do buy up the remainder of the supply they would have more of a pull to alleviate this exact issue you speak to in my opinion at least, because the objective is to have most of it staked/ purchased by the community (you and I) so that way down the road their % is only enough as they deemed necessary. However, a lot of people may not be willing to stake, or for various other reasons we haven’t purchased the total supply that would give the “community” the actual voice like some of us may want right now. I definitely understand your frustration. I just have to keep reminding myself of this distinction personally. I hope it gives you a new perspective if anything.


The DFINITY foundation should and could be elected through NNS without any loss of organizational efficiency. In fact, this can completely solve the decentralization problem of any public blockchain with POS, as long as it has such a wonderful mechanism as NNS.
But it seems that everyone in this forum is so frightened by this idea. I don’t know why.
Maybe IC is indeed a private chain.

This may not be realistic, most stakers do not have the expertise to select the right person, and DFINITY as a legitimate company is not under the direct management of NNS, even if NNS passes the proposal.

1 Like

Now the owner has fixed those weird things. Glad DFINITY took quick action on this, we didn’t change our goals

NNS is always learning to make good collective decisions, and, obviously, the earlier the better.
NNS does not need to select the right person. DFINITY selects a “right” person, and then NNS approves it in the final.
If DFINITY is not under the control of NNS, then NNS means nothing but a disguise.
Many people think that BTC cannot be fully decentralized because of the existence of the BTC Core, and ETH cannot be fully decentralized because of the existence of Vitalik. But if DFINITY can be under the control of NNS, then ICP can actually be fully decentralized.

It is very strange that you do not know why given that every time you bring this up people tell you why. namely that recruitment, technical interviews, HR, etc can’t possibly be conducted by leaderless democratic vote, and that nobody in their right mind would work at a company where their employment status and pay depends on an annual popularity contest

you keep saying It Will Make It More Decentralized like it’s a video game stat then ignoring every actual problem raised and instead just repeating it again or giving some nothing-answer about “honor”. actual democracies such as your favorite western government do not have you elect every employee. you elect the guys who make all the decisions and then everyone under them is hired paid and fired just like any normal company. if every parliament paper-pusher was elected by national vote then there would be so much worthless churn and dysfunction that nobody would ever have the time to write some actual laws.

if you think a DAO where every token holder votes on every last aspect of the employment process is the best way to run a company then nothing but cash stops you from proving it. in the meantime everyone else will keep developing software instead

1 Like

To be perfectly honest, I am having a lot of trouble understanding why you would say that. Clearly, the IC is NOT “a private chain.” But more importantly, you @ysyms have spent many months in the IC community where there has been ample evidence to the contrary, as well as many thoughtful answers from folks to your questions (I alone have answered many of your questions).

I am honestly starting to wonder whether our efforts answering your questions were fruitful or productive.

If you do not believe the ample technical evidence, nor the words of many of us, maybe it is better you spend your time researching another blockchain project.

In short, at some point I will start asking for some signs of evidence that you care at all for the IC… but I honestly have seen mostly complaints, miscommunications, and odd questions. A lot of your questions (such as on this thread) are born from looking for evidence (usually from secondary marketing material, not technical docs) for a conclusion you have already reached. If you do NOT care for the IC, then do not spend your time on this. No harm no foul. There are plenty of other chains.


Let me be clear @ysyms ,

  • I’m the owner of the ICP Discord. You know who I am. You can address my name directly. That would be a nice manner.
  • I removed “Official” from ICP Discover a few seconds after having a call with @diegop . My action has nothing to do with your post on this forum, or your suggestion to me on this topic a few days ago. Yes I let you know on Telegram and said thank-you for your suggestion (I generally thank everyone who tries to give me suggestions). I didn’t change the server name because of you. Just so that we’re clear. You don’t have to take credit for something that had nothing to do with you. A colleague showed me your post here hours later I already changed the name.
  • As @diegop said, if you don’t trust the people in DFINITY or the tech we are building, feel free to join other blockchain ecosystems. Nobody is forcing you to stay here. Your hanging out in IC is turning into a tortuous story that is consuming many hours for many people who could have spent their time in much more productive way or more meaningful questions.

In sum: under the control of NNS, the operation of DFINITY does not change at all; it just needs an official NNS approval in the final.

You can reject anything if you want. But if you can change your mind for a while, you will see the beauty of this idea.

@wpb Do you know why IC can’t get rid of the accusation of centralization? They even told me that I should leave IC if I don’t believe in DFINITY. Ha ha
this values are going to reshape the Internet, is it to return to feudal society?

1 Like

Then why can you represent the official?

Technical proof of decentralization? neither the operation from the node machine nor the on-chain governance system nor the degree of dependence on DFINITY can prove that IC is a public blockchain

All I know is that DFINITY is building a public blockchain

1 Like

I was also astonished at the response. Dfinity appears completely blind to its deficiencies. I have a whole thread about issues with transparency with which nobody from the Foundation has engaged:

They have no decentralization roadmap, no transparency roadmap, no roadmap to transition away from Dfinity’s hegemonic control over the protocol. Read through Dominic Williams’ 20 year roadmap and there is no mention of any of this. They seem to really believe that because ‘the tech is really good’ everything else can just be wished away, including the erratic behaviour of their leader.
I have also been told to go elsewhere by a Dfinity spokesperson, but I won’t. I have a fair amount staked in the protocol and I will stay and push for good changes as best I can, and so should you, @ysyms


Well this is where I think you and I have a disagreement on tone, not substance.

@zire literally wrote:

I removed “Official” from ICP Discover a few seconds after having a call with @diegop .

Meaning I agreed that term “official” was not right, so @zire (Herbert) changed it. No harm, no foul. I have certainly written many things which were incorrect and then corrected them.

My disagreement is on tone. If your post had said “I dont think this is the right word,” I would have agreed. Instead it goes off about dfinity employees technical acumen. I think that this feedback on your communication style and how even when I agree on removing the word, the tone was unnecessarily purist or reactionary.

Further piece of context:

While I am on the camp that the word “official” was wrong, I think it is worth understanding Herbert’s intent, and more directly, his inspiration. There are a few blockchains that have “official” discords. He wanted to create a similar lightning rod for community…

… Now you may say, “Why can Herbert create an official discord?” and the answer is honestly the inverse of what you assume. Anyone can create a discord channel that claims to be the “official BTC” , “official Eth”, “official ICP”, etc… discord channel. It is a protocol. A channel or discord server is only as official as people are willing to concede to it such status.

The question is NOT “why did Herbert get right to put the word official?” … the question is more “Why do you think it is the official one? I certainly do not. That is why I told Herbert and he removed it.”

In blockchain protocols, it is up to the community to emerge the channels or leaders it wants to raise. In the same way I can call myself “King of Bitcoin” and create “official BTC discord.”


Of course, you can create official XXX, you can create BTC official or you can create APPLE official GOOGLE official, but they have the same point that they are all scams

I do not want to spend much more energy on THIS thread. But I can tell you @tsetse that I certainly SAW the earlier thread, brought it to up many leaders at DFINITY, and we took it a feedback for things to work on. The only reason no one from Foundation has not replied is my fault. I told people “I got this”, but have been wanting to reply with something substantive.

In hindsight, I should have at least replied acknowledging that we are reading it actively to see where we can improve.


Not quite.

Google and Apple are companies. They have a legal right to say “this is NOT the official discord channel”.

With blockchains, anyone can create such channels and it is up to the community to decide depending on traction. It does not make them scams necessarily.

But regardless…this is a perfect example of what I am referring to:

  1. I cited that Herbert changed wording because I suggested it
  2. You ignore that

It would have been better if you had written, "I am glad you also agreed and he changed it. Next time I will assume good intent when asking." There are many faults or bugs, treat things as bug reports and less like bad intent… makes it easier to for folks to fix them.

So DFINITY is guiding the community to recognize DFINITY as the official official of the ICP blockchain