About Junk Proposals: 8 proposals per day. 30 days from June 1st

We are a decentralized group who have the power to make the decisions about the NNS but now we have a group who feel they are our leaders.

Is there anything wrong with me sending a proposal for my own benefit? Am I only able to do something for the benefit of others? If you don’t like the extra reward, you can send it to me

This is not decentralized and we give them our power as to say if you can’t beat them then I might as well join them for the rewards.

We have allowed the world to be taken over by those who say that we are not free unless we are allowed to do as we please and as a result we are under threat and control of pumpers and dumpers.

I propose that those proposals spammed on the NNS and rejected by the community have no rewards paid to anyone and I am happy to give back all the rewards I have received from the past spam proposals that I benefited from to go back to the NNS as well as those who have benefited from the past spam proposals.

You don’t want to get more, I want to get and other people want to get

I would like to see and test the decentralized community if they would like to get their power back.

We can also not allow those public keys of the spammers to make proposals that affect all their neurons.

We need to show and not let down Dfinity, IC, ICP that this is a world class technology that will inspire the future top tech entrepreneurs, that this new internet protocol is where they need to build the future top 10 online companies.

But if they see our NNS is under siege from spammers just like everyone else then this project may fail. It is up to the NNS stakeholder to create this world class system and not just a few pumpers and dumpers take control to entice us to reject for rewards.

There are too many here in my opinion that just look on and watch this destructive behavior from spammers while forgetting their responsibility and the power they have in removing these problems for their investment money and interest in my opinion.

If you just stand by and allow spammers to reward themself and justify their behavior by getting you extra rewards, then you will get just that.

The spammers are playing by the rules setup by the NNS (us, the DAO). I don’t think that we are taking this lightly nor forgetting our responsibilities. Witness different proposals by @skilesare , @wpb etc with others contributing meaningfully and asking questions as appropriate. We need to be careful in not creating additional unintended consequences; therefore we are debating the best way to move forward.


I am not sure that I would agree:

I have been called names and punished by other members in this forum including the DAO and finally the NNS was changed to make that punishment baked into the NNS.

I am a Follower and now I will have my followings, unfollowed every 6 months and if I have taken a stake for 8 years and unaware of the API being changed from under me then I will receive no rewards for the next 71/2 years.

Of course you will inform those who have invested their money and time in the NNS, oh hang on, the NNS doesn’t have my email address, name or any other details to inform me of the API changes from under me like the top tech companies?

Lucky I know a forum where I can get updated on NNS changes that calls me names and how they want to punish and have punished me.

The spammers are playing by the rules setup by the NNS (us, the DAO).
Are you any better because you can change the rules which by the way benefits yourselves.

So I started to log in to the NNS very often to participate in voting and found there were no freshly baked proposals but mostly fully voted on proposals, or none, almost like an Insider trading where people know when proposals are being added to the NNS because I never receive any notice from the NNS?

I am sure the DAO wouldn’t do that.

But to shut me up:
with others contributing meaningfully and asking questions as appropriate.

You do have a nice way of putting down followers and punishing them but the reality is you have in my opinion changed the NNS for extra rewards for yourselves and still rewarding spammers.

How about making proposals on the NNS be available for 12 hours so all stakers can vote twice a day, easy fix, as they are entitled but you took that away?

How about not rewarding no votes on the NNS, easy fix but no is the truth you like the extra rewards yourself.

I don’t think that we are taking this lightly nor forgetting our responsibilities. Witness different proposals by @skilesare , @wpb etc We need to be careful in not creating additional unintended consequences; therefore we are debating the best way to move forward.

No I don’t think you are taking it lightly and very biased in the forum with who is and not rewarded.

Deomcracy is messy; but the best system, imo, that we have. I didnt agree with the tokenomics changes that we made (staking maturity/maturity/ staked icp). However i didnt think that someone was punishing me. They were expressing their views and in a democracy, majority wins. That’s the game that i agreed to play when i participated in the NNS goverance.

Secondly i think you attribute too much power to individuals. I certainly DO NOT control the NNS. We COLLECTIVELY do. You and I and everyone else.If you dont like something about the NNS,engage with the team. Argue your points without getting personal. Listen to others with open mind. And like in a game, you will not win all the time.

There is nothing to prevent you from starting a proposal discussion and then create a proposal. If you would have convinced enough minds, then you get your proposal implemented. If not, you accept the loss gracefully.

99.9% of retail investors (other then seed and Dfinity) are at big loss. I assume 90% are at 75% and more of loss. I also assume these spams rewards are a little relief to their huge loss. Can we blame them? I bought my first ICPs at $320. I was (and still) believing so much in this new tech. I am against spams. Do I feel guilty of receiving few ICP’s extra because some other investors don’t seems to care about their vote? Absolutely not.

For the proposal on getting rewards on maturity. The problem was not because they wanted the maturity to receive rewards. The problem was that they want avoid to pay tax. It is not up to a DAO or democracy to decide what is taxable or not. This belong to IRS and the court if you don’t agree with IRS. This will come back and hurt a lot of investors. Will take few years. IRS will not let those hundreds of millions to go away clear. Why do you all think Dfinity did not want hire and produce a professionnal report, from KPMG or Deloite, or both before the vote? Anyway, this is another topic that will come back on all of us sooner or later.


Dfinity also vote on all spams proposals. We can only assume the reason is that they also want have their share of the extra rewards. At the end, they are the one who benefit the most financially.
I do not blame them. Will make more money for development. But we have no precise clue on how they use their ICPs.
Despite what crypto community think, everything on chain does not provide transparency at all.


There are no bad companies or organizations, just bad people working there.

The Dfinity Project in my opinion was a great read and idea and the reason I stake today. I don’t have any issue with them as they play by the same rules as everyone else and they don’t change the rules, the stakeholders do.

If they make money from staking then they are healthy and this project will go further ahead, I want that for them.

What I have issue with is those individuals that bend the rules, not for the project just for greed and they can.

All I am doing here with my comments is protecting the interests of Dfinity and stakers and when I see something or someone that lowers the profile of this community then I will engage in making changes to those individuals who trash this environment.

Like most addicts, when they see they are getting away with things, they take things further.

We need to be careful in not creating additional unintended consequences; therefore we are debating the best way to move forward.

We can’t not say anything as well.

We have a known spammer in this community who is blatant about creating worthless proposals on the NNS to reward not only himself but those who are following him on his twitter account.

This is only getting worse. Currently he wants to increase spamming from 3 to 8 proposals a day.

The community talks about fixing this issue but never come up with a solution and from the topics that I have read on Governance they also include followers with the topic of spammers.

We don’t need to talk further about followers, that has been concluded.

Why can’t we just not reward rejected proposals on the NNS. I don’t and can’t create my own proposal because I don’t know how but I am hoping someone will and I will support that vote and hope the number of bad people don’t out number the good.

phase 1 Donation
8 proposals per day. 30 days from June 1st.

Fee rate: 100%

Donation target: 4800 ICP (81030(1+100%)=4800)*

Donation time: 96 hours (if the Donation target is not reached within 96 hours, it will automatically enter the next phase of Donation)

I assume the math is base on 1 persons rewards but lets times that by 1000 stakers

Is this the demise of our investment or make it really healthy?

agree 100%
Dfinity had a chance to vote for the weight to return to 1 (no programming was needed) and that would have eliminated the spams. It was a quick temporary fix until a permanent one could be decided and applied. Stating that was not a permanent solution, and I agree it was not, they voted NO and preferred to keep the spams going on.
So it is very difficult to guess what Dfinity will be voting. And we don’t know either when Dfinity would vote or abstain. For your proposal to pass, you have to convince Dfinity and ICPMN. Without those 2, I don’t think it is even possible.
Some people think this is a great democracy. I do not agree at all.
In real democracy, you have to express your own voice, not the voice of someone you trust in order to get pay. I don’t mind the voting system, but I don’t think we can call it democracy.
What I am saying is that the path of this NNS and voting is not clear at all. Not for me I should say.
This said, I respect the way it is if this is what the community want.

Need to add: The passion and the skill of all programmers at Dfinity and in the ecosystem is impressive and make me hanging on.

1 Like

I would like more information on this or a link, thanks’

Dfinity as I remember does not want to make decisions and claims not to be able to sway votes as it does not have 50% of the voting power nor does anyone else and wants the stakers to decide what is best. I would assume many voted against the proposal as well.

The voting system should in my opinion should allow stakers a 24hr period in which to vote so I could login once a day and fore fill my right and others criticism about voting but at present I have to guess when the best times to login and see if luck is on my side to be able to vote.

Why wouldn’t stakers just follow as they don’t have the time to guess?

This I believe encourages a staker to form gangs for payment for a time when spam is added to the NNS for rewards.

Just for a moment let’s think outside of the box, what would happen if we allowed spamming?

Total supply: 481,915,609

For the price of an icp to rise they talk about inflation. So as the spammers mint new reward coins and others burn coins the price at some point will rise.

So maybe we should support spamming?

here is the proposal rejected by Dfinity

I am not sure about the inflation you are talking about. But the spamming does not create any inflation at all. It only redistribute differently the amount of ICP to be paid to voters.
I think there is a flaw in the amount of rewards distributed. Talking about the 10% going down to 5% over 8 years. For me, neurons who don’t vote should not make the voting neurons to have more rewards. Those should not me created. It would lower the rewards inflation. But this is another topic.
Right now, retail investors are loosing so much that the temporary extra rewards are a little bandaid to the pain.

That is not the proposal. @skilesare submitted the proposal twice and accidentallly voted on the first one prematurely for ICDevs. Austin resubmitted immediately and allowed the community to vote before ICDevs eventually reject the proposal.

Yes, you are very right.
Same proposal and same result

1 Like

you have almost three day to vote lol reward only finalize after the proposal get burn/ three day for governance proposal.

the lack of tokenomic understanding by those who criticize the reward incentivize is real lol

1 Like

joinin us and become an active voters becuase almost 90percent of retail like us are active,

you fight against the reward incentivize is just the same as like you on the passive whales side that got hundred of millions of icp airdropped after genesis. so its quite fair to distribute the new minted token through governance 20 to new active network adoptors, not even 1percent compare to whales that lost a small percentage of daily reward after got millions in airdropped,

dont know what to say if they could not sacrifice their small daily reward for the sake of the decentralization and especially to build up a robust network adoptors, cuz they also gonna be the one who benefit from this in the long run, too

token will never exceed 20percent in minted supply (original tokenomic policy done by dfinity) and it will overtime decrease and there is no risk in inflation due to the spam even tho it might be bad in image but overall i think 2proposal per day is ok,

not sure if the spam is one of the key factors behind the drop in minted inflation, daily voting reward, average voting reward all been decrease, and most of the small 8yearsgang all benefit from this


i think @kvic is in the phase of curiousity lol soon he gonna become one of the active too (another product of the reward incentivize), i used to be like him tho even mad when it took icdevs three proposal to just become a known neuron but now everything is clear haha

Yeah lots of people don’t understand this, inflation is fixed no matter the number of proposals, what changes is the distribution of the rewards. Right now active participants are being rewarded more than passive ones.