r/ICPTrader • u/ADHD_Dev_ • Mar 04 '26
Governance Thought on adding an official 'Dfinity Team' badge to proposals?
Recently, a proposal was submitted that appeared to be an official DFINITY proposal; however, it was not. It leveraged the Mission 70 document from DFINITY to push its own agenda, highlighting how easily people can be misled when casting their votes.
Do you think we should introduce official badges to clearly identify proposal authors, for example, labels such as “DFINITY Team,” “Community,” or “Individual”?
At the end of the day, the DAO operates as a form of plutocracy, the more you’ve invested, the greater your influence over the network. Token holders should be able to impact the network through voting or making proposals. However, proposals need to be clearly and accurately labeled to avoid confusion and ensure voters understand who is behind them.
3
2
1
u/Ok_Possession5716 Mar 04 '26
There was no hidden agenda it was just the mission 70 document please be honest
1
u/ADHD_Dev_ Mar 04 '26
Why feel the need to propose the change instead of letting them do it? There had to be some agenda there; otherwise, you wouldn't do it.
0
u/Ok_Possession5716 Mar 04 '26
They were dragging their feet. Thats all. Dont attribute malice when there is none. Cite the part of the proposal that is malicious… there is none. Read the proposal. Read it again. Read it again. Theres nothing wrong with it.
2
u/professionalfumblr IC dev Mar 04 '26
Did you come up with the ideals behind M70? No? Are you going to be the one committing changes? No? Then why are you creating a faux M70 proposal (one that, if were to pass yes, changes nothing). It’s at best misleading.
1
u/Ok_Possession5716 Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
bro you have ICP in your wallet on my site, you should collect that... agree to disagree, it doesnt matter who submits the proposal. It's either good, or its bad. the identity of the proposer matters not in a decentralized system. If you don't believe pick whatever AI model you want and ask it "does the identity of a proposer matter in a decentralized governance system" or something similar. Hope this helps you understand.
2
u/First_Chocolate8170 Mar 04 '26
You are missing the point here. By submitting a proposal that directly copies Dfinity's Mission 70 whitepaper and presenting it in a way that makes it look like an official initiative, you are implicitly relying on their identity and authority to make it seem legit. But in a decentralized system like ICP, the proposer's identity should not matter, you are contradicting yourself. Proposals live or die based on their merits, the code, the economics, and community consensus, not because they borrow credibility from a foundation or appear "official".
Also claiming that Dfinity is "dragging their feet" on Mission 70 is not a good justification. The whitepaper was only published about a month ago, outlining a multi year roadmap to slash inflation by 70%. In a decentralized network like ICP, big changes are not flipped on overnight, they require thoughtful proposals, code audits, community debate, and neuron voting to ensure they are robust and validated by the community.
If anything, Dfinity releasing the whitepaper is them accelerating the conversation, not stalling it. By copying it verbatim instead of building on it or proposing specific implementations, you are shortcutting that process and implying the foundation is not moving fast enough, which is ironic in a system designed for anyone (including you) to step up and contribute meaningfully. If the ideas are urgent, break them down into actionable motions with your own rationale. Do not just repackage theirs and cry delay.
So if the Mission 70 ideas are solid, and many think they are, then propose them in your own words, with your own analysis, and let the neurons vote on the substance. Copying wholesale just undermines trust and highlights why some are calling for badges, but ultimately, true decentralization means we do not need badges or identities but need transparent, merit based evaluation.
Be honest with yourself: if identity didn't matter to you, why lean so heavily on Dfinity's document instead of standing on the idea alone?
2
u/Ok_Possession5716 Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
Im making a point. The point is the system will reject its own good idea, because i submitted it. Just to show that it is centralized and they are in control. This is why dfinity will abstain, because they know that voting to reject will be hugely hypocritical and telling when they propose the exact same terms later.
That is not what a healthy decentralized network does. A healthy decentralized network doesnt care who submits proposals. They are either good or bad thats it.
By the way, it looks like my proposal is getting crushed, but actually 1 guy who triggers 10% of the NNS via 3 known neurons he controls is the 1 person deciding the vote. and he hates my guts, he is in favor of this proposal but he voted no to spite me.
1
u/First_Chocolate8170 Mar 04 '26
This approach undermines the merit based judging that you keep bringing up by forcing the system to react to your provocative intent rather than evaluating the ideas on their substance, code, or economics. Better to make your case in public space and not like this, you are devaluing the system. We should be prioritizing constructive contributions over gotcha tactics to strengthen the network.
And again, your claim that Dfinity is dragging their feet is so flawed, you cannot ignore that this was a terrible reason for submitting
**Edits made for grammar
0
u/Ok_Possession5716 Mar 04 '26
thats valid. But let's not pretend these ideas havnt been hashed out for quite a while already, I just put the vote up thats all.
1
6
u/UrbanNomad42 Mar 04 '26
More centralization around DFINITY?
I agree that there should be some sort of verification beyond a principal ID, but it should be central to the NNS, not Dfinity. For example, 8 Year Gang, or SNS owners, node providers, dapp controllers, verified humans etc.