Hi Dfinity family.
I’ve been in blockchain for a while but just recently joined the Dfinity forum & start playing around with NNS. I have to admit that I am very impressed with the discussions in this forum (and think Dfinity and its community will have a bright future based on what I’m observing here).
At present, I’m very interested in the discussion on “a long-term solution to resolve the governance proposal spam”.
On the one hand, like many of you, I’m very annoyed by these spammed proposals (and fully understand the financial incentives of doing so). I strongly believe that this hurts the eco-system, the dev team, and people of this community who are actively engaging in governance.
On the other hand, I believe the temporary fix to change the governance voting reward weight back to 1 (which was discussed here and passed recently), even though stated as “temporary”, is a huge mistake. Participation in governance is supposed to be the most serious duty & right of those who really care about the IC network and its future. So naturally, voting reward for governance proposal should take a significantly higher weight. By reducing its weight back to 1, the message is loud and clear: we don’t care much about this issue (while still spending time & resource to implement solutions to resolve/avoid tax matters, another issue that I feel strongly against but irrelevant to this discussion).
So I’m just thinking about if the following solution can work:
- Set a high voting reward weight for governance proposal (20 as it’s used to be or even higher).
This is to ensure that governance participation is highly rewarded (which is just a no-brainer IMHO).
- Set a limit for the number of governance proposal a neuron can submit/propose (e.g. once a day).
This is to ensure that a neuron can’t spam several governance proposals within a short period of time (one day in this case). Apparently, people still can by-pass this by using multiple neurons (which let to point (3)).
- Set a “time-out” time for each neuron whenever one of its submitted governance proposals is rejected by super-majority (or approved by super-minority).
For example, a neuron will not be able to submit its next governance proposal in the next 3-day period after one of its submitted governance proposals is rejected by X% of voters (where X is the super-majority level to be decided by the community) or approved by, less say, only 1% of voters.
This is to ensure that a neuron can’t just put forward a not-so-well-thought governance proposal. I believe that, for any well-thought governance proposal, even though it is eventually rejected, it will still gain enough support from the community to escape that “super-minority approval” level.
One last thing, what I’m proposing here is actually not new and has been widely applied at both government and corporate levels.
Governance is a serious matter for the long-term health and growth of a network. So I really hope that Dfinity & our community can take a much more serious approach and resolve it sooner rather than later.
Thank you for reading this & look forward to your feedback & discussion.
Edited: updated point (3) from “its submitted proposal” to “one of its submitted governance proposals”. Thanks.