The Alice DAO has recently come under scrutiny after new users from the BOB community joined the platform during its launch, only to find themselves locked into a system where their votes count for little and their rewards even less. The recent configuration of Alice’s SNS parameters appears to undermine the very principles of decentralisation that a DAO is supposed to uphold, and for those new to the ecosystem, it’s been nothing short of a rude awakening.
With around 200 BOB users coming into Alice, they were given neurons locked for either one or two days. While this setup initially seemed standard for a DAO, it quickly became apparent that the voting system was anything but typical. Despite these users holding a substantial portion of tokens, their voting power is minimal. This was made clear when it was revealed that users holding 24.40% of the tokens had less than 2% of the voting power.
Such an anomaly raises several concerns about the direction in which Alice DAO is headed. The intricacies of the SNS DAO parameters are not easily understood by the average user, with only a handful of individuals appearing to fully grasp the settings. As it stands, users who are unfamiliar with these complexities are likely to accept the default neuron settings and cast their votes, assuming they hold some sway. However, the reality is quite different. In most DAOs, one would expect voting power to be commensurate with token holdings or staking duration. Not in Alice. Instead, the voting power seems heavily skewed in favour of a select few, while the rest are left in the dark with minimal influence.
This is where the configuration of Alice’s DAO begins to raise serious questions. The bonuses, which are set with a max dissolve delay of up to 8 years, effectively lock users into a system where their tokens are tied up for long periods, with voting rewards only coming into play after years of waiting. For those who are not interested in staking for an entire decade, this setup offers little incentive. The system is designed in such a way that it encourages long-term commitment but at the cost of any immediate influence within the ecosystem. For those looking for quick returns or active participation in governance, Alice’s current structure leaves much to be desired.
The key issue here seems to be the concentration of power in the hands of a few. Users without deep knowledge of the SNS DAO parameters are left with little to no chance of gaining meaningful voting power. This is made all the more concerning by the fact that other SNS DAOs do not have such restrictive configurations. Unlike Alice, these platforms offer more equitable distribution of voting power, ensuring that all users have a say in the decision-making process.
Moreover, the leadership behind Alice, particularly an individual named W.e.n.z.e.l, has been accused of deliberately creating this configuration to consolidate power. W.e.n.z.e.l has been linked to efforts that prevent proposals aimed at reducing voting power bonuses, and it is widely believed that he played a key role in designing the system that has left users feeling disenfranchised.
For those looking for a solution within the Alice ecosystem, the options appear limited. One possibility is to simply hold on to a neuron and vote, despite knowing that their votes will have little effect. Another option is to unstake and sell the tokens, which at launch were priced at 0.003332 ICP, but have since risen to 0.0145 ICP. For some, this may seem like an attractive way to exit, especially given the lack of meaningful participation available to them.
However, for those still hoping to make a difference within the DAO, the only remaining option appears to be staking tokens for the full 8 years. This would give users voting power, but it also comes with a significant trade-off. The rewards tied to this long-term commitment are not immediate. In fact, users would likely see their ALICE tokens return only after 11 years, and potentially double their investment after 22 years. While the rewards may seem appealing in the distant future, this model hardly encourages active participation in governance, especially for new users who are just starting out.
The problem here is not the staking mechanism itself, but rather the way in which it is being used to control the governance of the Alice DAO. The current leadership seems more focused on consolidating power for their own benefit, rather than fostering a truly decentralised system where all users can participate on an equal footing. There is a very real risk that the Alice platform is being used to support the interests of a few, rather than serving the broader community.
Looking at the bigger picture, it becomes clear that the issues within Alice DAO are part of a larger problem within the Internet Computer (IC) ecosystem. The current setup seems to favour those who are already deeply entrenched in the system, leaving new users with few options if they want to influence the future of the platform. This is hardly in line with the ethos of decentralisation that the IC was originally built upon.
Thankfully, there are some in the community who are trying to rectify this situation. One such individual, a prominent whale within the IC ecosystem, has expressed his intent to clean up the mess that has been made by the current leadership. By buying enough Alice tokens, he hopes to take control of the platform and bring about much-needed change. This will involve changing the current parameters, including reducing the age bonus to 25% and setting the max dissolve delay to 100%. These changes would allow for a more equitable distribution of voting power, giving users a real say in the future of Alice DAO.
However, getting such a proposal accepted is no easy task. With the current leadership still in place, it may prove difficult to garner enough support for these changes. But with the backing of community members who are committed to the principles of decentralisation, there is hope that Alice DAO can be reformed and returned to its rightful path.
The lesson here is clear: without active community participation and a fair distribution of power, DAOs like Alice are at risk of becoming little more than tools for the few, rather than platforms for the many. For those looking to participate in DAOs and truly make their voices heard, it is crucial to stay vigilant and demand transparency and fairness in governance. Only then can decentralisation truly be achieved.
The Alice DAO, with its current configuration, may seem like a daunting environment for newcomers. However, with concerted efforts from the community, there is still hope for change. The focus must be on creating a system that rewards active participation, promotes decentralisation, and ensures that every member’s voice is heard, no matter how many tokens they hold. Only through these principles can DAOs like Alice realise their full potential and live up to the ideals they were built on.
