I find this proposal interesting but for the time being I’d feel more comfortable if periodic reset were only implemented for the governance topic, as mentioned in the other thread, and majority calculation stayed unchanged. This is mainly for 2 reasons:
I want to see what kind of impact followees reset has on active voting power, governance topic is the perfect fit for this test as it is the topic where most stakers are active in and it doesn’t result in any immediate changes. My concern is the reset could over time lower the amount of VP cast on proposals cause stakers don’t know about it or aren’t active enough to refresh their neuron settings in a timely manner, behaviour of a large user base is hard to predict on paper so the only way to gather meaningful data is to test it live. If active VP effectively decreases over time than the proposed new calculation for absolute majority will give Dfinity even more leverage on the NNS.
At this point in time there are no popular alternatives to Dfinity for more technical topics so resetting followees on all of them will only be an hindrance for the users.
Thanks for taking the time to write your response & provide feedback @Zane ,
I agree that this would be a useful “testing grounds” in which this functionality could be tested, with minimal impact to the protocol in the instance something “goes wrong”.
I’d agree a measured testing environment is the only way to truly gauge outcome. I’d also agree that the potential lack of returning VP, could cause security issues - however, you’d also have to consider it’d leave us in the same scenario as we are right now - with DFINITY in control.
With that being said, I do believe when it is time to enact a followee reset, it will be something in which will have to be vocalized by everyone in the ecosystem, through multiple platforms & communication channels - to ensure maximum voter turn out after a reset.
I’d also say that this is fair, however I think it’d have to be considered that the purpose of this proposal is the reaffirmation from neurons that “Yes, “…” is still the best option for me to allocate my voting power too”
While it’s true that there aren’t many code based contributing named neuron’s to date, this proposal sets out to lay the groundwork to enable the gradual decentralization of voting power, from the indefinite self assigned super majority, to alternative community code based contributors.
While this may be viewed as a “hindrance” - the fact of the matter is that you receive ICP, from your stake, as a governance reward - for actively contributing to the governance of the protocol. By enabling a set&forget mindset, with 98%+ of Voting Power indefinitely allocated to DFINITY - this is no longer a governance reward, but once again a staking reward.
This will be the result of your proposal. You will be “taking peoples rewards” (your words) with zero benefit to people who are actively involved in governance. I’m trying to say there is no justification for that change right now. I’m on board if a change motivates people to actively participate in governance, but I believe that your proposal does not accomplish that goal.
You have stated that you are intentionally going out of your way, to remove neurons from the reward pool, to thereby increase the reward pool of active voters.
The intention of your proposal is not to reduce spam, but rather increase the rewards of those who are participating in voting.
The combination of proposals I have laid out, sets out with the intention of seeking reaffirmation from neurons, that they are content with where their voting power is allocated. It does not set out with the intention to affect rewards - however, this would be an unintended consequence, as ICP distributed via the NNS are governance rewards, not staking rewards. Meaning if you are not contributing to governance, you are not receiving rewards.
An abundantly advertised semi-annual re-affirmation of Voting Power is not a large contribution to ask for.
You may not believe voting power needs to be decentralized immediately (I would lean towards agreeing), however that doesn’t change that the foundation for decentralization must be laid.
Should I start calling you intellectually dishonest? Come on, I’ve told you my intent on so many occasions and you willfully twist the narrative to suit your own needs. You can disagree, but creating false narratives about other peoples intent is not ok.
If tokenomics will benefit people who are active participants in governance then I’m fine with changes. If you are going to make changes that benefit nobody and hurts some people, then I’m not going to support the change.
That is correct, you’ve told me your intent multiple times. Based off our conversations, you quite clearly set out with this proposal, with the intention of removing neurons from the reward pool, to increase the reward pool for voting neurons.
You can call me intellectually dishonest if you want, but that doesn’t make this a “false narrative” - it is very easily verifiable within this thread.
Furthermore, I’m not sure why you consistently insist that Decentralization is not beneficial? This is a blockchain, which revolves around decentralization.
So in summary, what you want to achieve @Accumulating.icp is to steal voting rewards from passive investors by making major changes to the tokenomics in a way that has no benefit to active participants in governance and does not advance decentralization in any way.
DFINITY will go from owning 21% of voting power to owning 45-55% voting power with your new definitions. DFINITY will go from triggering 99.4% on proposals that fall under All Topics when they vote to triggering 98.8% of voting power on those same proposals when they vote. The optics will go from bad to worse, but apparently that’s your intent.
Somehow you believe that decentralization is achieve by stealing peoples rewards to the benefit of no one, artificially inflating the apparent voting power of DFINITY, providing no mechanism or incentives for people or organizations to become experts who can make decisions on non Governance proposal topics, and expecting people to volunteer their time to develop code and become experts in the topics that fall under All Topics Except Governance, SNS & Community Fund.
I see your idea is a threat to ICP and do not want to see it implemented as you have currently scoped it. I don’t trust your qualifications to solve this problem. The solution to default following needs a more wholistic consideration than what you are offering in this proposal.
I’ve seen many ignorant comments from you in the past, @wpb , but this one tops them all. Additionally, I find it hilarious that you have yet again resorted to malding when proven wrong, rather than addressing the topic at hand (I could have sworn you usually call this ad hominem!)
I’m going to start here, for the sake of irony. It was just stated, by you, that your intention with the Periodic Followee Confirmation proposal, was to remove Neurons from the reward pool, to in turn increase individual distribution from the reward pool.
You are projecting - it has been shown that this is your intention (on multiple occasions, at that), not mine.
A tokenomics change, would be adjusting the inflation/deflation of ICP. This is not tokenomics related.
This is a change in how select governance proposals are executed.
It has absolutely no affect on the amount of ICP that is minted / burnt.
This is blatantly ignorant on your part - the benefit to governance participants, is the distribution of the self-assigned 98%+ indefinite absolute majority.
I’m not sure why it is so hard to grasp, that people knowingly & willingly selecting their own followees, rather than having them assigned - directly contributes to the decentralization of our liquid democracy.
This is again, a blatantly ignorant mis-characterization of the proposal. It is almost as though you completely ignored everything I’ve said previously, and are just attempting to throw out whatever sticks.
I’m going to reiterate this for the 4th? time, this proposal would not affect the execution of proposals outside of Absolute Majority’s. Meaning, if a proposal has, for example, 4% yes votes, and 3% no votes - this system would not apply.
This proposal does not mean DFINITY has 45%-55% Voting Power. It means they have 51% of what is required to enact an Absolute Majority, in comparison to the current 42%. This occurs alongside them losing their indefinite 98% self assigned super majority.
I’m going to reiterate, that this does not “steal” rewards. If someone does not vote, their corresponding rewards are not minted at all.
Which you should know.
This directly incentivizes participation in liquid democracy through the reaffirmation from neurons, that they’re content with where their voting power has been (forcefully, in most instances) assigned.
The only instance in which their perceived voting power changes, is in the instance of an Absolute Majority - in which case they gain +9% VP - in comparison to the indefinite 98% they’ve assigned themselves currently.
Which, let’s be realistic, you are the core advocate for them retaining 98% Total VP at the moment. I’m curious how that was not an artificial inflation - as they’ve assigned the VP to themselves?
Wenzel, I understand that you’d desperately like to be paid for your governance contributions - hence why you push so strongly for the NNS Treasury.
However, just because you believe the only way we will see alternative contributors to the IC is immediate financial gain, does not make it the case.
As with any DAO, the incentivization for the participation & contribution of the DAO holders, is the responsibility of the success & longevity of the DAO.
Meaning the incentivization has been cooked into the protocol from Genesis.
I’m also going to have to reiterate that this is not the objective of this proposal - and is something that should be addressed individually, within its own proposal.
This set of proposals (being the Periodic Followee Confirmation, and the Absolute Majority Weight Adjustment), set out to lay the groundwork’s of decentralization of voting power - not completely decentralize it immediately.
The objective of this specific proposal, is to make DFINITY more comfortable with the enactment of a followee reset - as they (and you) have stated, that removing their self assigned indefinite super majority, results in security risks, as they can not immediately execute proposals.
I am doing my part as an independent contributor, by writing the proposals, the code, and pushing the topic.
That’s perfectly fine Wenzel - I don’t trust you either.
The difference is that I don’t expect you to trust me, or want you to.
Verify it.
The good thing about ICP, as much as you don’t like this aspect, is that it is supposed to be a decentralized blockchain - I don’t need your permission to contribute.
If you would like to attempt to address any of the rebuttals I have made, to show me where I am wrong, you are more than welcome, however you have not yet articulated a credible “threat” in regards to this proposals implementation, nor do you seem to have an understanding for how the proposal works.
I suspect this is probably the conclusion of our conversation - so I suppose we will wait to see what DFINITYs thoughts on this proposal are.
If we are not actively striving for means to ensure decentralization over the longterm - how do we know it will happen at all?
Just hope one day DFINITY decides they no longer want ~98% control of the protocol (as their personal voting power has decreased by ~50% over the last 2 years)?
Or hope that they eventually decide the community is “competent” enough to identify security concerns themselves?
I’m not saying they need to lose the voting power, but there does need to be a system in place that reaffirms “yes, “…” is the best followee available for me” - rather than allowing the current indefinitely self assigned 98%+ supermajority.
This proposal aims to enable the enactment of the Periodic Followee Confirmation Proposal through addressing the concern raised by DFINITY - being the inability to feasibly execute an Absolute Majority after the Reset.
I’ve shown you where I believe you are wrong multiple times and each time you respond with aggressive rebuttals that are replete with false characterizations. You seem to have no capacity for listening and accepting alternate ideas that are counter to your own. I told you from the beginning that I didn’t want to argue with you specifically because it was predictable that this kind of interaction would come from you. I’ve attempted to diffuse those responses throughout this conversation and have given you plenty of opportunity to simply agree to disagree. It is impossible to have an intellectually honest conversation with you, which is really sad because you could have so much more impact if you were more diplomatic in how you treat people.
Please move forward with submitting your proposal to the NNS. There has been plenty of time for discussion. I call the question. If you don’t do it soon then I will do it for you using your original post (now is your chance to edit if needed). Let’s formally find out where people stand. After your proposal is complete, if it fails, then I plan to submit a proposal to rescind the original periodic confirmation of neuron followees proposal. This will give people a new voice about whether or not the original periodic confirmation of followees proposal is still supported by the NNS and the community. I’m actually very curious about this since the original driver is no longer relevant.
This is ironic, as nearly all of your statements regarding this proposal have been false characterizations.
I have addressed each of your concerns, individually, on multiple accounts, to which you refuse to expand upon further once I do.
If you could provide valid reasons regarding your distaste for this proposal, I would be more than willing to hear you out (for example, when you mentioned if there isn’t an immediate voter turnout, DFINITY is left with more voting power than anticipated).
However, the grand majority of your objections regarding this proposal have been unfounded - which is why I’ve been explaining to you, why each scenario, as it occurs, is not as you’ve depicted it.
Again, I am not interested in arguing with you either - I was originally correcting misconceptions within your objections. And yes, they are objectively misconceptions.
This is another extremely ironic comment, given I’ve highlighted where your perception of this proposal is skewed, on multiple occasions - for you to completely ignore it & change the topic at hand, or simply refuse to respond at all. Please don’t accuse me of trying to “frame narratives”, as if you haven’t been attempting to create a narrative around this proposal;
No Competent Community Contributors
Gives DFINITY 51% of Voting Power
No incentive for decentralization
No incentive to participate in governance
Reading the conversation back, it has been quite clear that you are the one not willing to accept you could have a misconception or be wrong.
I plan to submit this proposal upon ample
discussion within the community, and the DFINITY Foundation. This is a draft proposal, and is intended to incorporate community feedback, to which it has not yet received - therefor this proposal will remain in discussion.
I don’t think your original intentions regarding this proposal were ever truly a relevant driving factor for the community. As stated, this does not address spam in any form. If anything, it enhanced spam when you proposed it - as it would have removed neurons from the reward pool, and increased individual rewards.
Now that the reward pool is a voter based reward system, this implementation does not run the risk of “stealing” rewards from others - and can fulfill its true purpose - being the reaffirmation from neurons, that they’re content with where their voting power has been assigned.
If anything, it is a better environment to enact a followee reset now, than it would have been then. However, I too, am curious on where the NNS stands in this now.
I guess I could copy and paste my comments over and over analogous to your strategy, but that won’t satisfy you because they still won’t align with your ideas. This forum topic is clear documentation of your lack of interest in true objective deliberation of ideas.
This sounds more like you are nervous about whether or not it will pass and you are just looking for an out since you have dug in so deep. Believe me, this proposal is going to the NNS in the form that you have presented. It will not be long. There has been plenty of time for discussion. I’m tired of all your BS on this topic and want to see a community response in an anonymous format. If it is not formally decided then we will never hear the end of it from you in the future. I recommend you give a reasonable schedule for when you plan to submit it to the NNS if you want to have a say in when this proposal occurs. It will be your unaltered words from the latest edit you provide in the top post along with a link to this forum topic. Your deadline is 2 days unless you propose a reasonable alternative that outlines a concrete schedule.
To be clear, this is the language that you have chosen to use. Changes in tokenomic are not stealing rewards from people, but that is the narrative you have applied when FUDing tokenomics changes. If they incentivize active participation in governance, then they are being used for their intended purpose. If the changes do nothing to advance decentralization, do nothing to motivate participation in governance, and remove rewards from half the NNS, then that’s irresponsible at best. Approval and implementation of this proposal as currently defined does quality as “stealing” rewards as you have routinely used the term.
I’m not sure what you expect me to do, when you continuously reiterate the same concerns - without acknowledging when they are addressed.
The grand majority of the concerns that you have articulated (As stated, you’ve mentioned one that I believe is a valid potential concern) do not accurately reflect the effects of this proposal, or the environment in which it is being proposed in.
You have continuously refused to acknowledge responses to your concerns - and consistently changed the topic & avoid conversation exclusively when it has suited you.
If this forum has documented the lack of interest in objective intellectually honest deliberation from anyone - it has been you😅
Oh Wenzel, you caught me! After offering to write the code, pushing for the Periodic Followee Confirmation for so long, and publicly disclosing what I believe to be a potential solution - I suddenly want to retract my proposal because you have had a temper tantrum due to the fact that you can’t understand the implications of it!
I find the strong arming tactic cute - you definitely don’t have an agenda! (Surely you can appreciate that you’re trying to end community deliberation, before it’s truly begun, with the very centralized entity that these proposals are setting out to begin decentralizing)
As stated within the topic name, this is a draft, meant for community deliberation. Notably, I am currently awaiting to hear DFINITYs stance on the topic - as they have stated they have been following it, and are forming an opinion.
Upon their feedback, I will refine the final proposal, which will then be submit to the NNS.
You are welcome to submit the premature draft proposal to the NNS if you’d like - but it’s certainly going to show just how far you’re willing to go to circumvent independent contributors.
The irony of that quote… Surely we can understand the difference between a scenario in which people not voting equates to you taking their rewards, and a scenario in which people not voting doesn’t affect your rewards.
When you intentionally cause other people to lose their rewards, for the purpose of you gaining more rewards - yes, you have indirectly stolen their rewards.
Whether it incentivizes governance or not, if you are doing it for the purpose of removing people from the reward pool, to increase your own rewards (as you have stated), you are stealing their rewards.
This is yet another ignorant insinuated categorization of this proposal.
I shouldn’t have to explain to you how people willingly & consciously choosing their followees, rather than having them forcefully assigned, contributes to decentralization of liquid democracy.
I also shouldn’t have to explain to you why a followee reset incentivizes people to take a more active role in the management of their neurons & followees - and in turn participation in governance.
However, I will explain why governance participation is important, regardless of the fact that you are such a big advocate of “Governance Rewards not Staking Rewards”;
The IC distributes maturity rewards to neurons, as a reward for governance - not for staking.
Meaning, maturity is supposed to be compensation for a contribution to the protocols governance. As genesis neurons had their voting power assigned to DFINITY, this means that many have been able to utilize a “set&forget” mindset to collect rewards - without actually participating in governance or liquid democracy in any form.
This directly contradicts the reward scheme of the IC - as these neurons are not actively contributing to governance, nor have they ever consciously contributed to liquid democracy ( ~50% of Voting Power is not utilized within governance, therefor it is reasonable to assume many of these are set&forget neurons).
“Stealing” is when I am taking your rewards, as your prop would have done upon its original proposal, or like a forced NNS Treasury contribution.
It’s not accurate to call this “stealing” as there is no beneficiary in response to people losing rewards - there is only the incentivization to begin contributing to governance, to ensure that your portion of rewards are minted.
You have two days to stimulate the community discussion that you think needs to occur. If there is no traction, your proposal is going to the NNS. We need to find out if you have any actual support for this idea. My guess is no, but I’m happy to be convinced otherwise.
Hi Wenzel. I hope you are having a nice day. I seem to have entered the conversation here a little late, but there are a lot of things I like about this proposal, and I want to make some suggestions. But then I got to this comment and realized there is something else I have to address first…
“You have two days to stimulate the community discussion that you think needs to occur.”
Where is this rule stated? I don’t remember only having 2 days to discuss a proposal before it has to go to the NNS. I’m sure you didn’t make it up, so please refer me to the NNS proposal rules so I can see this for myself. Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Hi Accumulating.icp. I’m not sure how this thread seems to have turned into a private battle between you and Wenzel, but I happen to like your proposal and want to add some input, if that’s okay.
I, too, am concerned that the Periodic Followee Confirmation Proposal has never been implemented. It’s a bad precedent that DFINITY can just decide that a proposal that passed is suddenly a security risk and then just not do what the DAO agreed upon. It is especially concerning with the possibility of the SEC considering ICP an unregistered security. To me, the DAO is the main thing that protects against that. But if DFINITY runs the blockchain like its own business, regardless of what the DAO decides, then it may be a little tougher to convince the SEC.
Anyway, enough about that. Here are the things I like about this proposal:
It gets us the follower reset, abiding by the decisions of the DAO
It still leaves DFINITY with the ability they need to take quick action for the benefit of the protocol
It takes into consideration the fact that only about half of neurons vote while also allowing for more (or less) participation in the future.
I do have a few concerns:
I would like to hear DFINITY’s opinion on this topic, and I’m looking forward to the response they have stated they are preparing.
Not all known neuron teams/individuals have the technical knowledge for protocol-level decisions. If they simply decide to follow DFINITY for all non-governance/SNS proposals, would this actually change anything? It seems the average user only cares about governance/SNS, although I personally agree that decentralization needs to advance faster (I can’t believe it has been two years already), especially with the government scrutiny that seems to be coming to all blockchains.
Okay, I guess that is my two cents.
[edited because I realized a DFINITY team member replied yesterday, and they are preparing a response]
GM Ser! You and I both😅 I appreciate the feedback, thank you!
I agree, being a DAO with independent contributors is probably one of ICPs better defences against being a security. I am also curious about the prioritization of this in light of the SECs recent claims.
I agree, I’m also curious on where DFINITY stands on this. I feel as though it’s a good potential solution - although it may not be the correct one - so I’m interested in hearing the pro’s & con’s they see with this.
I agree, not everyone at this moment will be able to contribute to protocol decision - and that is okay. It is most likely, that the majority of neurons will reassign their voting power to DFINITY - again, that is okay. The objective of the combination of these proposals is to lay the groundwork’s for gradual decentralization over time. It is not intended to immediately remove DFINITYs voting power, as I don’t disagree, they are debatably the only party developing on the protocol layer at the moment.
It is about the reaffirmation from neurons that “Yes, “…” is still the best Named Neuron for me” - aiming to ensure truly decentralized liquid democracy.
EDIT: You got the first response of the morning - a bit redundant with the “I agree” in hindsight
There is no rule. I have come to the conclusion that this is an important step for this specific proposal. There is nothing keeping me from doing it and I plan to do it in the most unbiased way possible, but there will be a proposal so we can get a formal decision on this topic.
This forum post actually started 7 days ago and so far hasn’t sparked much feedback from anyone except me. Normally when a proposal doesn’t generate much interest it will just die in the forum and not make it to the NNS. That is what should happen to this proposal. However, I find @Accumulating.icp to be like a bull in a China shop willing to wreck everyone and everything in his path. This is clearly evident just in this forum post when you follow it from the beginning to the end, but everyone also knows his antics also carry over into other social media such as Twitter. Many people have been the target of his attacks in the past. He develops very strong opinions and never lets them go. If this proposal goes to the NNS and it fails, then my hope is that it will be a clear message that he doesn’t have community support and will relax his aggressive tendencies on this topic. If it passes, then it is clearly a good idea and should continue to be part of the conversation. Hence, I currently see no down side to this proposal making it to the NNS no matter who submits it.
I think the solution to this problem is to submit a new proposal to rescind the original proposal for this reason. I probably should have done that a long time ago when the original driver for the proposal went away and it became apparent that there would not be any community controlled mechanisms to fund and coordinate community driven protocol level work and IC public goods. The idea could still be part of a longer term decentralization solution, but right now the community still believes DFINITY is ignoring what the DAO agreed upon and is entitled to see it implemented. If a proposal to rescind is approved, then the updated community decision would be that the original proposal should not be implemented by DFINITY and if it is rejected then it will be confirmation that the community still supports the original proposal and still wants to see it implemented. Either way, we will know how the community feels about the proposal after being formally presented with the drawbacks to the proposal that were identified after the proposal originally passed the NNS.
DFINITY has stated they are following the topic, and are forming an opinion - which they will publish as response. Additionally, there has been a group of community members working on putting together a “Spaces” on this topic, for a more digestible audio format.
This is something that has already been stated, alongside the fact that this is a draft proposal, not a final copy.
