Hi wpb! I meant that today, the voting rewards are X and they get divided among everyone who does vote. The proposal, as I understood it, wanted to scale X based on how many were actually voting, and then divert whatever X-V would have been to the Treasury. Hence, money that would go to me today as a “voting member in the presence of non-voting members”, would instead be redirected to the treasury. In other words, lack of voting by others would have no bearing any longer on the size of my own rewards.
1 Like
Thanks @jwiegley. There may be confusion about this call to action forum topic. It isn’t a proposal to change tokenomics. Proposal 80790 was a change to tokenomics and was already deliberated and passed. This forum topic about an NNS treasury includes recognition of undistributed governance rewards resulting from proposal 80790 as a potential source of funding. We are not deliberating the tokenomics changes since they already passed.
I was interested in clarification on the idea that governance rewards might be diverted from non voting neurons. This isn’t possible. I wouldn’t want to divert rewards that are awarded to neurons. However, I don’t see anything wrong with using rewards that are undistributed. Undistributed governance rewards belong to no one yet they are part of an inflation schedule that is already understood by the community.
3 Likes
I’d like to self-promote Cosmicrafts Business Model here, which is based on bringing more users to the Internet Computer and get revenue from NFT trading royalties.
Cosmicrafts Proposal aligns with the Free-to-Use and Use-to-Earn model to facilitate user on-boarding, burns ICP/cycles, increase user database and invites them to participate on value projects like Social, Marketplaces, DeFi, Games and other Infrastructure, because the final goal to a thriving ecosystem is to reach Critical Mass.
Now, this Revenue Model doesn’t apply to all projects but it is a unique opportunity on the whole Crypto Space because of IC Reverse Gas Fees, which in my opinion it is one of the biggest advantages to open Web3 for more users.
1 Like
@civolian, I’m quite new to this forum, and I just came across some of your posts in the past day. I took a look at the video demo of your product. However, I don’t understand how it is actually capturing evaluations of different alternatives, let alone aggregating those evaluations into a coherent social preference relation, which is what would be required for “direct democracy”.
It seems like there is only a 1-5 sentiment rating on expert video opinions about the vote, which is effectively a vote on the expert voters, rather than a direct vote on the alternatives the experts are presumably talking about. Although this could be great as an indirect form of liquid democracy to support some experts over others when one wants to follow the lead of experts, that appears to be more of a form of representative democracy rather than direct democracy. Are you planning to expand this platform to include direct evaluations by all participants on alternatives too (e.g., to decide how much scarce funding to allocate to a large number of project alternatives)? This is what would be required for the NNS to be used to fund growth when there are many projects competing for the same community / treasury funds.
How many undistributed rewards are there to date? 0. Because they were all allocated to voters.
The whole concept of non-voters rewards is a false narrative because as you’ve mentioned many times…you have to vote to get rewards.
So we are changing rewards that went to neurons…
We need to stop acting like there was always this undistributed rewards and we should do something with them…this was created by @skilesare with the spam proposal.
Where did you see me talk about non-voter rewards? I agree there is no such thing. Hence, I think descriptions like diverted can be misleading.
I’m glad you have recently discovered that the ICP token is actually intended for governance participation and have decided to get involved. It would have been nice to have you engaged during the deliberation of prior proposals as well. You certainly had every right.
What are undistributed governance rewards? How are they calculated? How is this different from non-voters rewards?
My point is they went to voters; you have reduced voters rewards but now we are pretending like there is some undistributed rewards and that it’s not related to or equivalent to rewards that either 1) would have gone to voters or 2) is related to non-voters.
I’ve always been involved in governance. I just didn’t feel the need to speak out because the governance proposals were pretty benign until I saw that you, @skilesare, and @dfisher are 1) taking rewards from voters and 2) attempting to extract value out of the NNS via creation of a treasury.
2 Likes
Dude, I’m getting tired of offering you clarification on all these points. We keep having the same conversation over and over and over. The narrative I use is based on NNS proposals that have passed.
You clearly were not paying attention when proposal 80790 was being deliberated and submitted to the NNS. It has caught you off guard and now you don’t like the implications. You also think that the Synapse neuron did not vote in your best interest. This is understandable, but I think Synapse voting members individually believe we made the best decisions with the information we had at the time. The implications of that proposal and the logic behind why it was needed were clearly spelled out and deliberated by many people on the forum in the open. However, you and others (some who were actually involved in the deliberation) have now decided that you want a new voice in governance, which I wholeheartedly support. I encourage you to push the agenda you want to push. Use the governance system as it is designed to be used.
Here’s a novel idea…why don’t you create a new proposal topic to repeal proposal 80790. I don’t think it has been implemented yet and even if it has there is nothing stopping you from trying to revert it. I encourage you to change the narrative in a real way. Make a proposal that returns us to the narrative you want to be true.
You keep talking around the points because you can’t or won’t address the issues directly. Undistributed ICP is not a problem that needs solving. It’s either voter rewards or you are tracking non-voters rewards which you keep confirming doesn’t exist.
I was supportive of stopping spam and potentially lowering inflation but this forum post by David, which you co-authored, makes it clear you are trying to extract value from the NNS.
Also, I’ve now seen that there is no more spam because we reversed the weighting. So there is no problem to really solve…the incentive to spam is gone!
So either you didn’t understand what was causing the spam or your main motivation was to create abandoned/undistributed ICP. And by bringing the weighting back to 20 you are ensuring you maximize the amount of abandoned/undistributed ICP!
Yes, it was my fault for not paying enough attention to the forums and all the pointless governance discussions that have happened until now. This is corrected now and I will be a regular here.
Finally, I don’t have an agenda and have no issue with Synapse other than it has too much voting power. I do have an issue with people actively trying to extract value from the network. So I would implore the rest of the Synapse voting members to consider what their objectives are and what Synapse wants to represent because @wpb and @dfisher are painting a clear objective in this post…and it’s not a good one.
I have gone out of my way to answer every question you ask and address every point you make. I’ll leave this link here to our discussion on Taggr, which includes my most thorough response to your questions. At least in Taggr the blog posts and responses are structured so the conversation can be easily followed.
Yes, I remember that discussion…
But that still doesn’t answer questions around undistributed ICP which you inaccurately talked about above.
Why are you avoiding that?
Let’s stick to the language I actually used because it is accurate in the context of proposal 80790. You keep changing the narrative to suit your needs. Your question is already answered.
I’m asking you to define what it is and why does it exist if belongs to no one?
For those following there was a clear and present problem to solve: New Exchange Rate Mechanism - #29 by bjoernek
Wenzel, this is actually getting ridiculous now…you mentioned non-voting neuron rewards in this forum post that you co-authored! Does it exist or not?!
Hi @mechaquan ,
I think this is a bit unfair and harsh to @skilesare @wpb . I do not think that either one of them is taking rewards from voters.
At best, one presented a spam proposal that reduces the rewards of non-voters (one which was discussed openly). And even then, it is a motion proposal. The community can agree or disagree with the implementation. It is not like they personally gain from it.
Eve though, neither DFINITY nor I think the NNS treasury proposal by @dfisher and others will improve the IC, I think the idea of decentralizing work is a valid one in Web3, and it is not malicious. I think it can be openly discussed without saying the authors are “extracting” or “taking rewards”.
To provide a counter-argument, if there was a proposal to burn half the tokens in the IC or a proposal that burns more cycles, I think evaluating how much it helps and how much it costs the IC makes sense, but saying "Oh you just want to burn more tokens because it helps you" is not a constructive line of design discussion.
1 Like
Again, this is what they said. I’m taking this at face value so I don’t think I’m taking I’m taking their suggestion of reducing voters rewards out of thin air. It’s literally mentioned above in this proposal.
Also, it has been specifically mentioned to me by Kyle that IC Devs has been trying to receive funding for a year and the only way this can be done is via the NNS. So yes, these projects can directly benefit from it.
Finally, I agree with decentralizing work but we are too centralized at the moment for that decision to be a truly decentralized one.
You quoted a forum topic, not a proposal. I wish you would take at face value the responses I have provided to you before.
Here is one from Taggr…
There are no concrete proposals for the formation of a treasury, how it should be funded, or how it should be used. That is intended to be discussed in working groups and submitted in future NNS proposals. The temperature check proposal for the NNS treasury was simply a straw poll to see if the NNS governing body thought it was worth discussing further so people don’t waste their time if it can be known in the beginning that the NNS would reject the idea.
It’s about motive an intent.
Look, I’m not saying you have bad intentions for the network…only that you’ve made you your intent for the treasury and funding clear.
I appreciate the transparency even if I don’t agree with it.
There are lots of ways for us to receive funding(ICDevs.org). We haven’t received “very much”, but an NNS treasury is certainly not the only way. ICDevs is 501c3 and overseen by the IRS. If I try to extract value from it over and above the generally accepted-salary for a non-profit director for a non-profit organization I’ll go to jail. To date, I have only been reimbursed for the lawyer fees from setting the thing up. How we handle our funds is published on our website and we are basically a passthrough for organizing and funding education and open-source public goods software for the internet computer.
I like all ya’ll, but I’m not going to jail for this thing.
3 Likes