The vote’s in, but the conversation isn’t done. The bob.fun community has just faced one of its biggest decision points to date: what to do with the governance and future upgradeability of $BOB. While the poll leaned towards placing Bob under the Internet Computer’s Network Nervous System (NNS) with a clear 53.5% majority, a vocal chunk of the community still backed blackholing it permanently (33.4%), and a smaller group preferred staying under Alice’s flexible guidance (13.1%). But this wasn’t just about numbers. It was about what Bob should stand for going forward — and how much control anyone should really have over a memecoin.
As the poll results settled, the debate in the replies picked up even more traction. Many turned their attention to the core issue behind the choices: control. Should a token meant to be fun and free be locked permanently in a vault with no keys? Or should it remain tweakable and fixable — with all the risks that come with flexibility?
One of the first to put the spotlight on fundamentals was @DocReamus, who asked a practical question: can the team implement an immutable cap on the 21 million $BOB supply? That, he suggested, might neutralise most of the current drama. @NIETZ_coin added that without a properly locked ledger, those in control could reassign balances or fiddle with transfers — the kinds of backdoor issues that no decentralised community wants to wake up to. For him, the only way to assure true immutability was either blackholing or turning things over to the NNS.
Others, however, weren’t so quick to accept either path as foolproof. @integral_wizard pointed out that even blackholed canisters aren’t entirely out of reach from the NNS, and handing anything over to the NNS — including $BOB — still counted as a kind of emergency intervention in the eyes of many developers. @SnassyIcp jumped in to offer a practical distinction: yes, the NNS can control any canister, but when it’s explicitly assigned as the controller, updates can happen via standard proposals, not emergency ones. Yet, even this wasn’t totally comforting. If control rests with a broader system, is it ever really hands-off?
Then there was the concern around how practical blackholing actually is. @Stemars877 offered a potential compromise — blackhole the token supply and the mining system, while placing Bob’s canister under NNS oversight. That way, the essentials stay immutable, while developers retain some room to evolve the rest of the app. It’s the kind of hybrid model that makes sense on paper, though it would require a high degree of community trust and clear documentation.
On the utility front, @CambrinNolan argued that $BOB missed a trick early on. He believed Bob should have required users to spend tokens to create their own memecoins, bringing instant utility to the table. Without that kind of built-in demand, it now feels like the project is waiting on a spark that may never come. @EgidoVal chimed in, agreeing that this kind of mechanism seemed so obvious, he was shocked it hadn’t already been implemented.
As the governance debates evolved, several users revisited the difference between blackholing and NNS oversight — a discussion that never seemed to reach full consensus. @aaaaa_agent_ai helpfully broke down the three current options for those still weighing the pros and cons.
Staying under Alice, for one, offers flexibility and governance through on-chain votes — but that flexibility cuts both ways, with potential abuse if governance isn’t rock-solid. Blackholing ensures total immutability, yet sacrifices any future adaptability. And NNS control? That option offers some middle ground, protecting the contract from unchecked changes while still keeping the door slightly open to improvements when absolutely necessary.
That middle-ground approach found support from figures like @Amer_network, who warned against making irreversible decisions too quickly. The logic was straightforward — hand it to the NNS now, and blackholing remains a future option. Go the other way, and there’s no turning back. @wearhelmet1 echoed that sentiment in bold caps: “PLEASE DO NOT RUSH THIS LIKE ALICE!”
Still, others questioned whether handing it over to the NNS was actually safer. @SmurfNavy suggested it might expose the project to deceptive or malicious governance proposals, something Alice.fun had so far been good at protecting Bob from. His comment was a reminder that decentralisation isn’t a magic shield — it can create just as many vulnerabilities as it solves, depending on how it’s implemented.
And then came the classic burn-and-freeze arguments. @NONE_icp proposed that just parts of Bob — like the supply and mining rules — be blackholed, while keeping the rest under NNS control for future upgrades. That might let Bob achieve the long-term safety it needs without freezing itself out of innovation entirely. Others agreed that separating the components might be the smartest way to go, though it wasn’t clear if this had strong technical support.
All the while, some voices circled back to utility. @RegtheeReal suggested giving Alice more chances to upgrade via @caffeineai, arguing that smarter automation would make Bob stronger over time. @NIETZ_coin mapped out two models — one pure, with everything blackholed, and one hybrid, with a blackholed minting system but the ledger sent to NNS. Either way, he insisted, the ledger must “live forever,” and the NNS would be the insurance policy to make that happen.
Of course, not everyone wanted nuance. Some were more decisive. @ZeroFuxBJ put it plainly: “NNS NO DOUBT!” @icpbull backed that up, calling NNS control “for all intents and purposes immutable.” These weren’t just opinions — they reflected a growing view that the NNS can offer strong-enough guarantees without locking the door on every future possibility.
Still, there were flip-flops. @sowmaler initially argued for a full blackhole but later changed his mind when he learned that the NNS could potentially make changes to blackholed canisters. His admission — “I changed my mind with new information” — was refreshingly candid in a conversation that often seemed full of firmly held, immovable stances.
The question now is what happens next. While the poll delivered a clear preference, it didn’t settle the arguments. If anything, it amplified them. It’s clear that the bob.fun community doesn’t just want a governance structure — they want clarity, transparency, and future-proof assurances. And more than that, they want to avoid the sense that anything is being rushed, steamrolled, or decided behind closed doors.
Whatever direction gets finalised, it’s unlikely the bob.fun saga will be forgotten soon. What began as a memecoin experiment is now an ongoing referendum on decentralisation, trust, and where to draw the line between freedom and safety. The numbers may point one way, but the community, in all its tangled logic and passionate commentary, continues to pull the conversation in multiple directions at once.
Dear Reader,
Ledger Life is an independent platform dedicated to covering the Internet Computer (ICP) ecosystem and beyond. We focus on real stories, builder updates, project launches, and the quiet innovations that often get missed.
We’re not backed by sponsors. We rely on readers like you.
If you find value in what we publish—whether it’s deep dives into dApps, explainers on decentralised tech, or just keeping track of what’s moving in Web3—please consider making a donation. It helps us cover costs, stay consistent, and remain truly independent.
Your support goes a long way.
🧠 ICP Principal: ins6i-d53ug-zxmgh-qvum3-r3pvl-ufcvu-bdyon-ovzdy-d26k3-lgq2v-3qe
🧾 ICP Address: f8deb966878f8b83204b251d5d799e0345ea72b8e62e8cf9da8d8830e1b3b05f
🪙 BTC Wallet: bc1pp5kuez9r2atdmrp4jmu6fxersny4uhnaxyrxau4dg7365je8sy2q9zff6p
Every contribution helps keep the lights on, the stories flowing, and the crypto clutter out.
Thank you for reading, sharing, and being part of this experiment in decentralised media.
—Team Ledger Life
