I propose starting work on allowing the modification of the description of a known neuron without requiring a name change, as this is currently not possible. Additionally, I propose enabling the complete removal of a neuron from the known neurons registry via an NNS proposal.
Summary
Currently, advanced work is being done to implement the provisions of proposal 130832, which allows all neurons - particularly known neurons - to provide additional transparency regarding their behavior to followers:
“This proposal introduces a new design that addresses these needs by offering greater transparency for all neurons in terms of their stake. It also preserves user choice on how much information they want to reveal about their ballots when requested. Additionally, for users wishing to disclose more about their neuron, the new design provides a simple way to do so.”
Many known neurons were registered before this proposal was conceived, presented to the community, and voted on. Now, there is also a need to remove some known neurons from the register for reasons beyond this proposal.
Given the direct impact of proposal 130832 on the privacy of many neuron components - previously private but now subject to disclosure. I suggest we first address the issue of the inability to opt out for neurons already in the registry.
Another issue to address is the current inability to modify the description of a known neuron while retaining its name. Those responsible for voting with known neurons often change their expertise, voting topics, or other relevant information over time to become more recognizable to their followers. This information naturally evolves. While this is a less pressing issue, it can still be inconvenient for voters who actively follow neurons, as well as for the delegators themselves, who currently can’t make such changes easily.
Some resort to workarounds, such as changing the capitalization of the neuron’s name, but the existence of such workarounds doesn’t negate the problem, nor does it reduce its impact on the overall user experience.
I invite everyone (especially @wpb) to discuss and share their thoughts!
Warm regards,
Krzysztof Żelazko
Governance Lead, ICP Hub Poland
This sounds like a great proposal, with a well reasoned and delivered explanation. I’d love this to be prioritised (I can’t imagine it being too difficult to implement, particularly the description editing part). Thanks for this @krzysztofzelazko!
Thank you for starting this conversation @krzysztofzelazko. I agree these features are needed for known neurons and would like to see them implemented.
As an example, I had to change the name for the CodeGov named neuron recently when the Summary information needed to be updated. The neuron ID didn’t change and I would have preferred that the name didn’t change, but it was important to update the Summary because the scope of work for the CodeGov team has changed due to the new grant program that funds known neurons that are committed to the work of reviewing and voting independently in specific technical proposals.
Hi all,
thanks for the suggestions! In general I agree that it makes sense to allow known neurons to be changed or removed.
Do you have examples of know neurons where you think it is critical that this happens before the public / private feature takes effect?
In general, I am assuming that neurons that were registered as known neurons were aware that they are observed more closely and that it should be OK for them to become public.
We have a future feature where we plan to look into named neurons. I think it would make sense to then also think about whether it still makes sense for some neurons to be “registered” (as the known neurons are now), whether it maybe makes more sense to register “per topic” (so that it is clear on the FE e.g., which known neurons declared to vote on which topic), and which other neurons can also have names etc. I think it would make sense to also discuss in this context how known neurons can be changed and removed, including whether this only requires a request from the known neuron’s owner, or a NNS vote, or both.
I think it’s fine to wait until the public/private feature takes effect.
I believe it is very important in the future for known neurons to declare themselves as a Followee option on a per topic basis. Hopefully the NNS dApp will even provide a UI that only shows the known neurons that have declared themselves for each topic so it is easier to know who is a valid option.