I saw ICPMN’s explanation 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 proposal #52742 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？ @wpb
The vote for this proposal before the ICPMN vote was 5.6:2.1
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 (in proposal #52742, ICPMN has 8% of the total voting weight, accounting for 51% of the total voting weight of the #52742 proposal). This means that even if your proposal can get the absolute advantage of 5.6 over 2.1 in the community, you must go to the forum to initiate discussions in accordance with the requirements of ICPMN before it can be passed, which violates NNS’s
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.
Why am I not starting a discussion on the forum
NNS does not stipulate that it must be discussed in the forum before launching a proposal
The forum is centralized, I don’t want “the most advanced DAO in the world” to rely on a centralized community and have the possibility of being controlled by forum administrators.
For community issues before launching a proposal: As the #52579 proposal said, I will send out two proposals a day, I don’t think there is anything worth discussing in half a day, and because I need to write a proposal on the same day , and handle various symbol conflicts and version conflicts as well as English translations. So even if it is posted on the forum, there is only a few hours of discussion time. For questions that arise after seeing the proposal, you can ask me or start a discussion on your forum, or you can vote “no” if you think you don’t fully understand it (but you should not understand the content of the proposal and agree with the content of the proposal. vote “no”, which goes against the design of NNS)
For the #52742 proposal, it has only one simple goal, if you think the technical threshold should be lowered, then vote “yes”, if you think the technical threshold should not be lowered, then vote “no”. Is there any discussion of the goals of the proposal?
For future proposals, I will try to publish them on the forum first, just like this proposal. (Although it’s hard for me to accept)
Community design goals
Since DFINITY currently controls ICP, DFINITY should establish this community to realize decentralized governance of ICP as soon as possible (if ICP achieves decentralization in the future, it may be possible to establish it by motivating developers by issuing additional ICP proposals. is an idea and will not appear in the formal proposal)
I think there should be discussions before launching certain proposals, but it shouldn’t be necessary because there can be very simple proposals that don’t require much discussion.
The community needs to be sufficiently secure and should not be controlled by individuals or centralized institutions. Considering performance issues, discussions on “proposals that have closed for voting” can be placed off-chain or not retained
After the proposal is officially launched, if there is no post about the corresponding proposal, then a post for discussing the corresponding proposal should be automatically created for the community.
Please make sure that you quote individuals instead of ICPMN. You know that the ICPMN neuron has voted no on your proposal because you can see it on the dashboard, but you don’t know why the group collectively voted that way. I have provided you some feedback here in the forum and in our ICP Maximalist Network chat group on telegram, but you are presenting bits and pieces of it as the ICPMN opinion. Our voting members are free to vote however they want on any given proposal and there are probably different reasons why you received a majority no vote from our voting members.
Proposal 52742 indicates that you are submitting these proposals because you want to increase your voting rewards. You also lobby for people
to send you ICP so you can keep these proposals going. All of your proposals so far have been one way announcements to the governing body instead of intellectually honest discussions that result in a well considered proposal to the NNS. I can’t vote yes for your proposals based on this approach. I want to support you. I want you to be an effective community leader on governance. It just seems you are doing this for the wrong reasons with the wrong approach.
I respect your right to submit a proposal any way you want. That is how the NNS is designed. I also have the right to vote yes or no for any reason I choose. That is also how the NNS is designed. I am a voting member of the ICPMN network and have committed to transparency and governance leadership. Hence, I am happy to engage in intellectually honest discussion about the topics you think are important to submit to the NNS, but there is no need to rush through it. I would much rather see you become effective at raising and presenting the issues you think are important.
I definitely agree with @wpb. I don’t think proposals need to be discussed necessarily on this developer-based forum, but governance needs to be discussed. First, there were going to be 7 days of proposals, which started regarding the result of the votes on that proposal, now two proposals every day until there’s liquidity in the neuron. Seems like a one-way train that no one managed to jump on, it just slammed through.
This said, I would like to see a community-based forum where to discuss governance before submitting it for deliberation to the NNS. Never felt the necessity for this until now, since every governance proposal has been submitted in a very objective way. Governance should not be submitted in a rushing way, there is no need to throw in 2 proposals every day just for the sake of throwing them. At the moment, from the way these proposals have been presented, I would love to have a third “Ignore motion” button, among Yes and No.
Proposals are not as binary as this comment suggests. What are the technical limitations to lowering the threshold? What are the opportunity costs? Are there security concerns? I would love for the technical threshold to be lowered, however these are the types of questions that I would have needed answered in order to vote Yes.
Posting in the forum prior to making a proposal would help identify the community’s questions and would most likely lead to a better result in the voting.
There is no code update in the motion proposal, and lowering the technical threshold is not something I can do. A more detailed implementation plan should be explained by DFINITY, and this proposal is just to let DFINITT know that we need it
Thank you for your feedback - we are always open to questions and impulses from the community. As you may remember, we were very happy to help you on the technical side for how to submit motion proposals, because we always support passionate IC voices.
While the NNS is designed to vote on proposals, we created the forum to allow the community to exchange views and share ideas. With this in mind, we are glad you moved part of this conversation to the forum where you, me, and other community members can participate. Our team is currently putting together an overview that will hopefully answer your questions and provide you with the links to the relevant information sources (we will post the link to the article here as soon as it’s live).
In addition, we aim to make a new attempt to outline our voting methodology in more detail and highlight further NNS and NNS frontend dapp development in our roadmap.
It’s clear you wanted that specific proposal to pass, so I respect you dedication to it. It seems that proposal #52742 was a serious proposal from you, separate from the “spam” proposals (your word, not mine).
As someone who has sponsored proposals that have been rejected and proposals that have passed, my advice to you is that:
Your proposal should include signs of deliberation on the topic, such as pros and cons, alternative considerations, feedback from the community and opportunity costs of implementation. Proposal 52742 lacked this.
Your proposal should not include direct statements to individual people. Proposals are directed at the voting members of the NNS (“Dominic, can you see that?”)
Your proposal should be socialized first, preferably in the forum (as you have started doing) or, less preferable, on social media. I, for one, will vote No on most proposals I first learned about through the NNS.
As a recommendation, you should avoid profanity in proposal as a level of decorum.
Hope these recommendations help you as you aim to achieve more proposals succeeding. If you have any questions, please let me know.
For the record, I think a proposal requesting an better interface for submitting proposals that followed the advice above would pass.
Yes, we need more governance tools that are easy to use for the community; the forums are developer-driven, after all, and the early investors who hold the bulk of the vote don’t visit them much.
Because IC recently changed the voting revenue rules, and the Foundation no longer votes, proportionally to avoid a drop in revenue, many people just FOLLOW the listed neurons for the sake of convenience, without having looked at why they voted.
I think Snapshot for the ethereum ETH is a great tool for this, so I and ICPL are implementing a similar product that facilitates true community participation in governance. We’ll also embed components like Google Translate to facilitate translating proposals into multiple languages for the global community to see.
Of course currently only neurons voted by governance can be listed by the NNS page, we plan to allow owners to add carved names for neurons in this tool and list them in the governance tools page to facilitate direct community follow, which will increase the diversity of governance in a simpler way.
This looks like it will have some very nice features. Will you have a translation button that enables all content on the page to show up in the preferred language?
Also, will you please add some functionality that will make it easy for public known neurons to describe themselves, their voting policies and values, and give them a place where they can describe why they voted yes and no on specific proposals. In the case of the ICP Maximalist Neuron, this probably needs to include the majority and minority opinions since we have 13 voting members who are all free to vote their own convictions on each proposal. In most cases, I think we could let the people who voted with the majority opinion describe why the voted with the majority and the people who voted with the minority opinion describe why they dissented. This would need to be gated where only the voting members of our ICPMN neuron are allowed to edit these opinion articles. I think our voting members would be happy to provide this feedback to the community, especially on controversial proposal topics.
I have a scope document describing this type of website that I’d like to discuss with you further if you are willing. There are some website tools that really could help governance for the community and for public known neurons (and probably private neuron organizations). I’m really glad that you want to develop some of these tools. You should apply for a Dfinity developers grant for this type of effort in my opinion.