Internet Computer Association

DFINITY Foundation

ICP Maximalist Network

cycledao.xyz

ICDevs.org



# 4.1 Let us get to know the list of known neurons outside of DFINITY again

## I saw ICPMN" [explanation](https://forum.dfinity.org/) of the vote for "Please lower the technical threshold for initiating motion proposals" (#52742):

1.cycle_dao and ICdev.org actually follow the ICPMN vote (it looks like the actual situation is more centralized)
2.ICPMN actually agrees with what proposal [#52742](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/52742) says to lower the technical threshold for initiating motion proposals.
3.The reason why ICPMN voted "no" is because I didn"t start a discussion on the forum before sending the proposal

## Why I vote against ICPMN"s vote on this proposal

1. The vote for this proposal before the ICPMN vote is 5.6:2.1
2. As mentioned earlier, "ICPMN believes that it must be discussed in the forum before voting for this proposal." If DFINITY abstains, then ICPMN will control the NNS motion proposal (relevant data: In proposal #52742, ICPMN has 8% of the total voting weight, accounting for 51% of the total voting weight of proposal #52742. For proposal [#52579](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/52579), vote in ICPMN Previously, the voting ratio of this proposal was 7.4:3.8. After the ICPMN vote, the voting ratio of this proposal was 7.4:11.9. Similarly, ICPMN neurons have 8% of the total voting weight, accounting for 41% of the total participation in the #52579 proposal) . This means that if DFINITY abstains, even if your proposal can get the absolute advantage of the community 5.6:2.1 or 7.4:3.8, you must go to the forum to initiate a discussion in accordance with the requirements of ICPMN before it can be passed, which goes against the design of NNS.
3. Since you agree with the goals of the proposal, you should not reject the proposal for an unspecified reason. You should be aware that if DFINITY abstains you actually control the NNS motion proposal, until the NNS system is improved, you should be responsible for a decentralized system, and your rejection is not only your own rejection, but NNS"s refusal, and the reason for this refusal is not part of NNS"s design at all, but your own regulations, and it seems that you are helping NNS to decide.

## ICPMN can vote "no" because NNS is free to vote.

1.You have 41%-51% of the voting weight for a proposal that DFINITY abstains from. You can arbitrarily decide on NNS proposals with a reason that is not within the design of NNS. This can only mean that NNS is currently an oligarch-controlled DAO, and now it seems that there are not five oligarchs, but two, one DFINITY and one ICPMN. , when DFINITY is inconvenient to make decisions, the proposal can be controlled by ICPMN again.

While current technology-related proposals must rely on DFINITY, motion proposals do not need to rely on ICPMN.

## ICPMN community members can freely decide their own votes

1. Judging from the data, it seems that the votes of ICPMN community members cannot affect the voting results
2. This proposal only analyzes the ICPMN neurons in the "known Neuron List"

# Answer questions from the community

### 1. #52742 Proposal has no relevant technical details

1. The motion proposal does not have any code upgrades
2. The proposal is only a goal rather than a specific implementation plan
3. Before making a specific implementation plan, you should first let DFINITY know whether the community needs it or not (as the #53013 proposal says, NNS is the best community survey method in the world).

### 2. #52742 Proposal is not guaranteed to be implemented even if passed

1. It doesn"t need to be guaranteed to execute, it just needs to let DFINITY know if we need it.

2. How long has it been since the "ICP Integration BTC" proposal passed? Is it delayed? Is it guaranteed to be enforced? If DFINITY announces that the research and development of "ICP integrated BTC" is stopped due to technical reasons, can the results of the original proposal guarantee the implementation of the proposal?

# The goal of this proposal is to spend 1 ICP to post this proposal on the world"s most cost-effective information dissemination platform。At the same time, whether to delete the "known neuron list as a data reference"

----


# 让我们再次认识DFINITY之外的"已知神经元列表

## 我看到了ICPMN对"Please lower the technical threshold for initiating motion proposals"（#52742）投票的解释：

1.cycle_dao和ICdev.org实际上跟随ICPMN投票（看起来实际情况更加中心化）
2.ICPMN实际上同意 [#52742](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/52742)提案所说的降低发起动议提案的技术门槛。
3.ICPMN之所以投"no"是因为我没有在发提案前在forum发起讨论

## 为什么我反对ICPMN神经元对 #52742提案的投票

1.在ICPMN投票之前该提案的投票情况是5.6:2.1

2.正如前面所说"ICPMN认为必须需要经过forum讨论才会对该提案投yes"。如果DFINITY弃权，那么ICPMN将控制NNS动议提案（相关数据：在#52742提案中，ICPMN拥有8%的总投票权重，占 #52742提案总参与投票权重的51%。[#52742](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/52742)提案的总投票参与度为19.2% ，在ICPMN投票前，该提案的投票情况为7.4：3.8，在ICPMN投票后，该提案的投票情况为7.4：11.9，同样ICPMN神经元拥有8%的总投票权重，占 [#52579](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/52579)提案总参与度的41%）。这意味着，如果DFINITY弃权，即使您的提案可以得到社区5.6:2.1或7.4:3.8的绝对优势，您也要必须按照ICPMN的要求去forum发起讨论后才能通过，这违背了NNS的设计。

3.您既然同意该提案的目标，就不应该以一个没有具体规定的理由来拒绝这个提案。您应该意识到，如DFINITY弃权您实际上控制着NNS的动议提案，在NNS系统得到改进之前，您应该对一个去中心化系统负责，你的拒绝不仅是代表着自己的拒绝，而是代表着NNS的拒绝，而这种拒绝的理由根本不属于NNS的设计，而是你自己的规定，看起来，你正在帮助NNS出决定。

## ICPMN 的社区成员可以自由的决定自己的投票

1.从区块浏览器的数据来看，ICPMN的社区成员的投票似乎无法影响到投票结果
2.本提案只对“已经神经元列表"中的ICPMN神经元做出分析

## ICPMN 可以投"no"，因为NNS可以自由投票。

对于一个DFINITY弃权的提案您拥有41%-51%的投票权重。您用一个没有在NNS设计之内的理由就可以随意决定NNS提案，这只能说明目前NNS就是一个寡头控制的DAO罢了，而且现在看起来不是五个寡头，而是2个，一个DFINITY一个ICPMN，当DFINITY不方便做出决策时，提案便可又ICPMN控制。

虽然目前技术相关的提案必须依赖DFINITY，但动议提案并不需要依赖ICPMN。

# 回答来自社区的问题

### 1.#52742提案没有相关的技术细节

1.动议提案没有任何代码升级
2.该提案只是一个目标而不是具体的实现方案
3.在做具体的实现方案之前，应该首先让DFINITY知道社区到底需不需要它（正如#53013提案所说，NNS是世界上最好的社区调查方式）。

### 2.#52742提案即使通过也不能保证被执行

1.它不需要被保证执行，它只需要让每个人都知道我们是否需要它

2."ICP集成BTC"提案通过多久了？它延迟了吗？它保证被执行了吗？如果DFINITY宣布"ICP集成BTC"由于技术原因停止研发，当初的提案的结果是否可以保证提案的执行？

# 本提案的目标就是花费1 ICP将本提案发在世界上最划算的信息传播平台上，同时为是否要删除"已知神经元列表做数据参考“




4.1 Let us get to know the list of known neurons outside of DFINITY again.双语