Absolute Majority Weight Proposal Draft

[Accumulating.icp]

@diegop

I can add a bit to what @lara wrote @Accumulating.icp:

Thanks for the response Diego,

@diegop

• The original proposal was meant to address spam
• Spam was reduced and became less urgency.
• It has been a LOW priority and no resources were addressed for it because spam was not an issue

@diegop

A bit of surprise from my end that so many people brought up this proposal given spam was not an issue… while people focused more on the side effects.

I’m going to quote a couple past points that have not yet been addressed, as I truly don’t see how this addressed spam to begin with.

@Accumulating.icp

Can you please explain to me how this would have decreased spam at all? From what I’ve gathered, it was intended to directly boost the rewards of voting participants - which would have only enhanced spam (given they were active voting participants).

@Accumulating.icp

How exactly would this have removed a imbalance?

What you’re describing is a way to increase rewards, from what I’m reading.

If the rewards are divided amongst all neurons that vote, and you are trying to remove neurons from that pool - that just inherently increases your own rewards, and in turn the rewards of those spamming.

I say again, if people are actively contributing to and benefitting from spam, resetting their followees does not circumvent them, but rather benefit them - as they are actively paying attention to the NNS to vote for & receive their rewards.

@diegop

1. DFINITY and @lara has communicated it think its best to decouple the spam and decentralization intent.

But i would put it more simply… if you or anyone wants “code it up” would they be submitting code to address spam?

So because someone sees an alternative value in the proposal (of which you have acknowledged in the past), it should be voided because it does not fall within the intentions of the original proposer? If due diligence was done on this proposal, should all of these effects not have been foreseen and considered upon originally voting? Why is it that this is considered a priority & on the roadmap upon our original dialogues, yet not a priority or recognized as a necessity now?

If a proposal was made to gradually decentralize voting power through a Periodic Followee Confirmation, would DFINITY vote in favour, or vote to reject, to retain their 99% voting power?