Why is the ICRC_1 Standard a governance proposal?

Was surprised to see this put forth as a governance proposal, and I don’t see anywhere in the proposal text the reason why NNS voters are being called to vote here.

What purpose does having NNS voters accept/reject this proposal actually serve?

Edit: At the very end in the Conclusion section I now see this text.

“The Ledger & Tokenization working groupproposes to adopt the ICRC-1 token standard as a common interface for transferring fungible tokens on the Internet Computer.
The standard does not seek to replace existing token ledgers but rather to serve as a base interface for accessing them.
The working group agrees to implement, integrate, and promote the standard and work on its extensions.”

Isn’t this the same as telling an off-chain entity to do X, like telling DFINITY to do X? @diegop Doesn’t this conflict with DFINITY’s tenets on supporting NNS proposals?

I guess I’m sort of confused at this point of what we’re supposed to use governance proposals for.


Note: After being initially hesitant regarding this proposal, I now support it. However, that doesn’t change my confusion over why this was submitted as a governance proposal.


got zero knowledge on the token standard so i have no idea on how to vote on this.

Follow the ICP Maximalist Neuron


I can see the confusion, but this is different (though it shares similarities)

To me, there is a difference between:

A. Entities composing of a community working Group voluntarily asking the IC community what they think about X. If community hates their idea, that is one way to get feedback. (such as this example, where I support people asking IC community for feedback)

B. Alice and Bob submitting NNS proposal telling the members of the Working group what the members of the WG should do.

A is WG asking community and using NNS Motions to help guide and poll sentiment on the direction of IC ecosystem.

B is someone telling entities (who may not wish to be told since they did not volunteer) what to do.

Hope that makes sense.


Does it make sense to put into writing how the NNS should be used so there isn’t confusion on this topic?


I recommend following the ICDevs neuron since this proposal will likely impact community developers.


Yes I agree.

If anyone wants to make a wiki page on NNS liquid democracy, conventions, best practices, I welcome it!! Internet Computer Wiki

(in the meantime, it just has not been urgent enough for me i guess @dfisher , but I will certainly put it on my backlog of wiki pages in case people dont get a chance to create one)

This would be helpful.

From my vantage point right now, there is no proposal initiated by the community that isn’t asking DFINITY to do something. The only way to comply with the current messaging on the purpose of Governance proposals is for the community to be prepared to implement code changes associated with community proposals. Even that can’t be accomplished today because Governance proposals don’t implement code changes. DFINITY would still have to be asked to enable the community to submit code changes to the NNS and then also be asked to vote in favor of the NNS proposal types that actually implement code changes (All Topics Except Governance). It seems impossible for the community to comply with expectations and still have a voice other than having a voice on topics that DFINITY originates as Governance proposals.

I’m definitely interested in better clarification on expectations.


Thanks for the clarification. I have a few follow-up questions:

Would it be accurate to say that NNS governance proposals are polls that gauge the sentiment of the staked voting power in the NNS? I use the word “poll” because any entity can choose to act (or not act) based on the results of a poll.

As this was sent by DFINITY to the NNS, I might argue there’s a big difference between the sentiment of the developer community, vs. its voting power distribution on the NNS.

NNS_Voting_Power != Dev_Community

If you guys want more feedback, just hold a poll like @mariop already did on the forums Voting results for the ICRC-1 Fungible Token Standard and next steps. Maybe blast it on Twitter too?

Also, this standard has (for all intensive purposes) already been decided. Would the working group actually have changed things or stopped the standard’s release if the proposal were to be rejected?

I understand if the purpose proposal was made as a “blast email announcement”, I just don’t understand why the NNS was chosen if the purpose was to gauge developer sentiment.


Yeah I don’t really get why its a proposal. Maybe for marketing reasons so it can be said the ICRC-1 was NNS approved. It says in the proposal that other token standards can basically co-exist but infinity swap have already begun marketing their AMM as the first AMM to use the DFINITY approved token standard. Ergo indicating other token standards are not DFINITY approved (an evidence for why dfinity should have been more careful with there venture into the application layer).

1 Like

Well to be fair, the Working Group has done polls and reached out to community in this developer-centric forum and posted many times as well as tweeted and communicated their work.

Since a standard is only as powerful as its adoption and traction, I certainly cannot blame the working group for trying to drum up as much support from community as possible. If they found out Devs loved the standard, but the NNS community hated it, that would certainly make them think twice. They have certainly been trying to reach as many corners as possible which seems reasonable (and as far as i can tell) a good faith effort.

One quick nit: the proposal was NOT submitted by DFINITY. It was submitted by the Working Group. Yes, it was submitted by a member of the WG that works for DFINITY, but it only went out because the WG agreed to it. Maybe in the future (given DFINITY’s presence), it would help making this clearer by having a non-DFINITY member of a WG submit it.

Maybe a more concrete answer to the original question “Why is the ICRC_1 Standard a governance proposal?” is:

I (and I stress “i” since these are my personal thoughts :slight_smile:) do NOT think it is exclusively a governance proposal, it is much more than that (the governance proposal being one piece of the campaign at feedback, support and option). The standard is a token standard proposal from the WG to community. WG knows that adoption and support are paramount so they want to drum up feedback and support from dev & IC community (Polls + governance proposals help here). Inversely, I can certainly imagine standards emerging from the community that never go through governance proposals.

It was submitted by neuron ID 70? Are neuron IDs that small available to the community? I’d like one. It would be much easier to remember. :grin:

1 Like

I know you are half-joking but the nuance is important for future readers (Hello, people from the future!):

  • Proposal was mechanically submitted by an engineer at DFINITY
  • Proposal was submitted on behalf of the WG (and all its members)

I can certainly appreciate the nuance being too subtle to folks who are not as active in the forums as you all are.

1 Like

Yes, I was joking. You clarified the situation in the previous comment, which was good enough for me. Before you provided that clarification, I did indeed think it was submitted by DFINITY simply because of the low neuron ID. Hence, I learned something new about those low neuron IDs which can help me avoid making assumptions in the future.

1 Like

So in what way is a “Governance” proposal (meaning a proposal with the “Governance” topic name) actually related to on-chain governance of the IC?

Ironically, it seems like every other topic (Exchange Rate, Node Admin, Subnet Management) actually does something, except for the “Governance” topic.

It’s sort of funny looking back now and seeing that for several months, the community boosted the rewards weights of the one topic that has no direct impact on the IC.

I think part of the confusion amongst the community might come from the topic’s name.

What if we just renamed the “Governance” topic to “Announcement” or “Poll”?


That a very reasonable stance. And makes sense.

I had not thought of the possible confusion because I’m so used to how other blockchains have voting for direction of the protocols (on-chain voting, with work happening off-chain).

these are still very early days so I expect more and more iterations as patterns emerge and we learn together.

I do think governance proposals go beyond “announcements” but I think you are making a higher point (which I agree) that the intent of what counts as governance does not have the same easy-to-understand boundaries as “exchange rate”.


I find it ridiculous that when something is not up for NNS voting, people say #IC Not Decentralized. but when everything is respectable and up for a vote, people say they don’t understand it’s good or bad to vote​:smile::smile::smile:, Nothing in this world is perfect, so I see voting as a show of respect for the community. so if there’s any proposal that you don’t understand whether it’s good or bad, you can follow Neuron that you feel confident in. The most important thing is still for the future and development of #IC.