# 3.2 Let us get to know NNS again

3.2 Let us get to know NNS again

What can NNS do?

NNS controls the cycle exchange rate, NNS controls the node machine, NNS can modify the token economy at will, NNS can change your private key, and NNS can delete the canister. Actually NNS controls everything about ICP.

Who controls NNS?

  1. DFINITY has neurons that account for 22% of the total stake
  2. The maximum participation rate for motion proposals is 45%
  3. For proposals other than motion types, DFINITY holds more than 90% of the voting weight

Actually DFINITY completely controls NNS

What do you think of DFINITY’s abstention from certain governance proposals?

DFINITY does this just to look a little decentralized. As I said earlier, in fact, DFINITY currently completely controls the ICP. As long as DFINITY wants, he can freeze your account at any time.The promise of a truly decentralized system that I need instead of a centralized institution

Let’s review the proposal “On Lowering the Technical Barrier for Initiating Motion Proposals”

It looks like my conclusion in proposal #53013 is correct, oligarchs are inherently exclusive and they don’t want more people to learn how to initiate proposals. Oh, and it’s also possible that they don’t dare to vote on proposals that criticize DFINITY" yes", after all DFINITY is the real controller.

If the ICP really restructured most of the world’s internet services, the NNS would be the world government, but at the moment this government seems to be more centralized than the North Korean government. I don’t seem to see any plans for an NNS system on DFINITY’s roadmap.
If NNS can’t change the status quo as soon as possible, what can ICP do to reconstruct most of the Internet services in the world? If NNS can’t change the status quo as soon as possible, what is the difference between 100% running on the chain and 100% running on AWS? How can you build a decentralized application on a blockchain controlled by a centralized oligarch?
What’s the point of integrating ICP with BTC? Threshold ECDSA signature looks very secure, but in fact it is indistinguishable from “WBTC secured by DFINITY”.

DFINITY seems to no care a lot about the design of NNS:

  1. Oligopoly Control

  2. Bad NNS frontend

  3. Proposal Initiation Process Against Humanity

  4. The NNS that fully controls the ICP doesn’t even appear in DFINITY’s roadmap and long-term R&D proposals, it looks like DFINITY thinks the current NNS works well.

What is wrong with NNS front end?

  1. The NNS front end is extremely slow
  2. The UI is ugly
  3. The NNS front end has various errors in the layout of the proposal, and it is completely unsuitable for reading the proposal
  4. If you are using the NNS frontend to read this proposal you will not be able to open this link
  5. So far, the front end of NNS still cannot re-invest automatically. I don’t know for whom the “deployed” that DFINITY said is deployed for.
  6. There is no one-click copy button for principal id
  7. No one-click copy button for neurons id
  8. There is no one-click copy button for canister id

It is been almost a year since the mainnet went live, and the NNS frontend doesn’t seem to have improved much. How can you make the DAO that controls the ICP look like this? If possible, please DFINITY dismiss the NNS front-end team

The goal of this proposal is to use 1 ICP to publish the content of this proposal on NNS, obviously I have achieved my goal


Yes, agree. There are many things need to be improved, glad to see you provided this, let the dfinity team know actually they need to improve a lot. What are 250+ employees doing everyday? (some ppl from the community even thought that most employees are selling #ICP everyday) Can the team provide more so as to let the team became more transparent?

1 Like

There is a lot to unpack in here @ysyms. I’ll share some preliminary thoughts and may come back with more feedback later. Chinese translation below.

I will start by giving you positive credit for engaging in the governance process in an enthusiastic way. It’s good to see more leaders emerge in governance and you are certainly stimulating thought and debate. I particularly like how your proposals are bilingual.

Dfinity has addressed their voting power situation in this post.

Currently for some reason cycledao and ICDevs are following ICPMN. That’s why there is such a big jump when ICPMN votes. Since ICPMN has 13 voting members, it takes time for our vote to be cast. This gives cycledao and ICDevs a little time to decide if they need to vote manually on a given proposal. For proposals that they don’t feel they need to have an independent voice, they seem to be happy to follow ICPMN.

This would improve if more public known neurons will step forward. There is nothing preventing that from happening and I suspect most people would welcome it. That doesn’t mean it should be easy. A neuron can’t just pop up out of nowhere. It takes time to build a relationship with the community and become trusted. I think it is highly desirable to have many public known neurons. this is counter to one of your most recent proposals, which was to eliminate public known neuron. I’d like to see it swing in the direction of having more.

I agree with most of your complaints about the NNS dApp. It needs a lot of work and I believe this has been well recognized. As you know from your engagement and research on the forum, this is in progress.

This particular proposal does not have any actionable content. Hence it is not likely to pass even though you are making points that many people will agree with. I suggest that you structure your proposals to be actionable and give people time to deliberate them on this forum before you submit them to the NNS. It will also help if you stay focused on one topic in a proposal. That way it’s less likely someone will vote no on the whole proposal just because they disagree with one part.

Here is the google translation into traditional Chinese. I hope it works properly…


Dfinity 在這篇 post 中解決了他們的投票權情況。

目前由於某種原因,cycledao 和 ICDevs 正在關注 ICPMN。這就是為什麼 ICPMN 投票時會有如此大的跳躍。由於 ICPMN 有 13 個投票成員,因此我們的投票需要時間。這讓 cycledao 和 ICDevs 有一點時間來決定他們是否需要對給定的提案進行手動投票。對於他們認為不需要有獨立發言權的提案,他們似乎很樂意關注 ICPMN。


我同意您對 NNS dApp 的大部分投訴。它需要做很多工作,我相信這已經得到了很好的認可。正如您在論壇上的參與和研究所知道的那樣,這正在進行中。

此特定提案沒有任何可操作的內容。因此,即使您提出許多人會同意的觀點,它也不太可能通過。我建議您在將提案提交給 NNS 之前,將您的提案構建為可操作的,並讓人們有時間在此論壇上對其進行審議。如果您專注於提案中的一個主題,這也會有所幫助。這樣一來,就不太可能有人僅僅因為他們不同意某個部分而對整個提案投反對票。


I’ll note that ICDevs is looking forward to the feature that lets us vote even after our followees have voted. It is a bit of a dance at the moment.

In general I think it goes beyond “actionable”. Submitting a proposal with significant editorial comments doesn’t seem to be a recipe for getting things passed. I’d suggest boiling the issue down to facts and/or specific suggestions and leaving the commentary for the forums. Collecting commentary before posting to the NNS would be wise and well.


Excellent point @skilesare. I’m still hopeful that we will see the change implemented in 2Q2022 that enables all neurons to vote manually throughout the entire voting period. It seems technically feasible and supported by dfinity during deliberation once the concept was framed properly.

On one hand, I do agree a lot of things need to be improved. I jumped into Dfinity’s vision because I saw professionals working in the background, taking their time to implement strategies and functionalities after loads of r&d and discussion with the community.
I’ll be straightforward here. My issue with this proposal is that I don’t get what the final outcome in case of passing will be. Dfinity won’t vote on motion proposals? The front end will be updated and better looking? Will the dev team get fired? Why is the proposal initiation process against humanity? I feel like that’s a bit of an overstatement, I didn’t think we were enslaving anyone or forcing anyone into starvation.
I really appreciate that regular people are starting to raise their voices about their concerns, but I wouldn’t want the NNS to become like a saloon where everyone shouts out their opinion with no filter.
I’ll give you credit for one thing, though: your proposals did make me engage personally into discussion for the first time since may 2021. But we have to work on the proposal structure and goals before submitting it for voting.


The forum is meant for being that Saloon. However there are issues which are critical in nature ( i.e.the tax implications of the new compounding method) where i believe that the community needs to be warned about what the experts (CPAs etc,) are saying. Additionally there are SEVERAL things which are languishing for months at end (i.e. community funds).

I believe that educational motion proposals are good vehicles for these types of issues

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in for educational purposes. But that’s exactly my point, the forum should be that saloon, and not the NNS itself, where the final edit should be posted for deliberation, and not discussion. Regarding tax implications, I have no clue at all. Every country, every state has its own regulations, so a solution in the near term I think is going to be quite difficult to find.

1 Like

Read into Swiss Non-Profit Foundation laws if you are worried about Dfinity being malicious at any point. The Dfinity Foundation (who controls all that voting power) is powerless to the Supervisory Authority of Foundations.


My ask of Dfinity because I was never able to find this myself, where can I reference the statutes that Dfinity provided to the SAoF?

1 Like

I believe this is the proper solution to @ysyms concern. It would be wonderful to have a dozen or more named neurons that are owned by well-known and recognizable Internet Computer organizations or persons who clearly state their intended voting preference and strategy. With that public information, neuron owners can make an informed decision on whether to follow a particular neuron, multiple neurons or no neurons at all.


First, I would also like to say how grateful I am to @ysyms for putting these motions forward on the NNS. That anyone can bring governance proposals is a wonderful consequence of decentralisation. I also value their clearly stated ‘rational self-interest’ - more voting means more rewards for neurons and, on a is a platform designed to quickly collect opinions and adapt governance, why not use it exactly for this?

Besides the challenges that come with governance volatility, the main problem I anticipate, either through misunderstandings of what constitutes a governance proposal or, probably quite soon, the use of bots/algorithms to generate lots of frivolous proposals, can make the whole system a quagmire or at least unpleasant to use.

I’m really curious to hear what’s already been said or put in place by DFINITY and the ICA to tackle this, as I am sure I am not the first person to spot the exploit. I didn’t find anything published yet.

首先,我还要感谢@ysyms 在 NNS 上提出这些动议。 任何人都可以提出治理建议是去中心化的一个美妙结果。 我也重视他们明确提出的“理性自身利益”——更多的投票意味着对神经元的更多奖励,并且在一个旨在快速收集意见和调整治理的平台上,为什么不将其用于此目的呢?

除了治理波动带来的挑战之外,我预计的主要问题,无论是通过对治理提案构成的误解,或者可能很快,使用机器人/算法来产生大量无聊的提案,都可能使整个系统陷入泥潭 或者至少使用起来不愉快。

我真的很想知道 DFINITY 和 ICA 在这件事上已经说过什么,因为我确信我不是第一个发现这一点的人。 我还没有找到任何发表的东西。


1 Like

Love to know the same

1 Like

Hi, every one,
I just want to say,
If the ICP price higher…higher… who do the rubbish proposal ??
It cost expensive on proposal !

You seem to be ignoring that the increase in earnings is calculated as a percentage