This is beyond transparent.
“I want to take it all back, because my initial intentions (being the inflation of individual rewards) is no longer applicable - therefor all other benefits to this proposal are void. Furthermore the community isn’t willing to allow a centralized entity to forcefully take a % of their governance rewards and determine how they’re utilized - so that means there won’t ever be independent contributors!”
I’m offering to write the code. I’m simply asking that DFINITY utilizes their 98% self assigned super majority to implement what the DAO agreed upon (Periodic Followee Confirmation Proposal).
Typical misquoting and mischaracterization. You are a master of the Straw Man argument. I’m so glad that we have this entire thread so people can see the difference between what I say and what you say that I said. Any time someone sees you offering a quote of what someone says it should be a huge red flag. Nobody needs you to quote them. People can speak for themselves.
Why don’t you give it a shot? Start coding it up, share with the community, and let’s see if people skilled in the art think you have the chops to follow through on this task. So far you are all talk with no delivery. Show us your skills.
It’s been made very clear, through both forum topics, that I will pursue this if DFINITY agrees to honour the original proposal, and pass code based changes.
Additionally, as a “design flaw” has been cited, it’d be ignorant to begin developing the code as-proposed, without pursuing a fix.
Once we have established that;
I will then begin developing the code - as I am not interested in wasting my time.
I still think people will get hung up on the issue of changing the parameter to a supermajority threshold, that’s a pretty major change.
My understanding is that the holdup is that DFINITY needs the ability to make immediate network changes should there be major issues, and proposals go into a waiting period before they can pass via a Simple Majority, correct?
That’s fair, and I can understand why you’d want to see the proposals separated.
The primary purpose behind the change in threshold, is to avoid creating a scenario in which DFINITY could nearly enact an absolute majority themselves.
Without this implementation, the stand alone proposal of changing the calculation from total voting power to active voting power, would leave DFINITYs voting power in regards to absolute majorities in the following scenario;
94.5M VP Owned by DFINITY / 115M Required for Absolute Majority
Yes, DFINITYs concern with the implementation of the Periodic Followee Confirmation, is that if they lose their Super Majority, they will no longer be able to instantly execute proposals at will.
That’s an interesting response given that you claim to be an independent contributor to the IC. It sounds like you are planning to let DFINITY do all to the hard work. You should at least be able to identify the most relevant sections of code that need to change and how you would change it.
What are your qualifications as a developer? Do we know your work? Do you mind sharing your GitHub ID? Please help me understand why you would be qualified to develop the code changes that you claim to be able to code.
I’ve pushed the proposal follow-up, I’m offering to write the code, I am providing potential solutions to referenced “design flaws” - all I’ve asked from DFINITY is that they;
I’m not sure how that is leaving the hard work to them…?
To be frank, while I could entertain this - I genuinely don’t owe it to you. You’ve resorted to ad hominem in response to being shown you’re wrong, time after time, while continuing to insinuate & insist counter-parties are to blame. You quite clearly are not interested in an intellectually honest conversation - but rather directly circumventing this topic.
It’s been established you don’t trust me, and that is fine. In the instance DFINITY agrees “yes, if you wrote the Periodic Followee Confirmation & provided the code, we would prioritize its implementation”, @diegop has made it very clear, that all code based changes submit to the NNS are reviewed by DFINITY engineers.
Meaning I genuinely don’t need to “prove” my qualifications to you - the work will show for itself upon review if DFINITY agrees to pass the code if it is provided.
Haha. If you say so. I don’t think you have proven me wrong at all. You writing that same message over and over like a broken record doesn’t make it so. All you’ve really done is express a different opinion.
Of course it is not a requirement. However, in the spirit of transparency it seems like you would be willing. What do you have to lose? It’s not like I’m asking you to reveal your personal identity. I’m just asking you to provide evidence that you are qualified. Why do you need to hide?
Diego Pratts the moderator is nowhere to be seen in this forum discussion
@diegop why is wenzel speaking for dfinity ? Where are your moderation tools @diegop ? Why does community have to always remind dfinity and its members what their job is?
A few months ago, I raised the question of how emergency measures could be implemented if they had to go through an NNS vote. The response was that Dfinity had the power to push through changes in a matter of minutes. That more or less settled the issue although I did wonder if there was a situation where even a few minutes were too much.
This thread made me think back to that brief discussion:
Yes, Dfinity can act quickly, but only so long as it has the ability to trigger a majority vote instantly. And, as long as it has that, voting will be heavily centralised.
I think @Accumulating.icp makes very good points, and I support his proposal, but in case it does not pass, perhaps my earlier proposal can be considered again in this light. The proposal is for a periodic NNS vote, say once a month, which gives Dfinity executive authority to make changes through an emergency mechanism.
That authority could be used through a special type of NNS proposal, maybe under a new head, which the community could easily vet to prevent misuse. Dfinity’s supermajority based on default following continues only for this type of proposal. All other kinds would involve categories where followers are periodically reset.
Giving executive authority to Dfinity in the emergency category, renewed through monthly votes, is a way of sidestepping the security risk that is preventing Dfinity from setting in motion the periodic confirmation proposal that was passed months ago. As matters stand, it is not a good look for the IC that implementation of NNS votes can simply be pushed back indefinitely.
For the record, I was out sick but I got pinged about this by multiple folks so I am back online.
i removed two of your other comments because they were inappropropriate, bad faith, and crossed into ad hominem, but I will address this one comment’s questions though:
I do not believe he is. Perhaps i missed it, can you link me something that shows he is.
If you can point to comments you think I should moderate, I will gladly review.
Criticism is fine, but this flirts with ad hominem as it implies that dfinity team members do not know what their job is. I will leave it for now, but lets please do better next time.
Personally I am interested in hearing from Dfinity on this matter not Wenzel, especially given recent regulatory developments that probably make the need for this reset even more pressing.
Everyone’s got threads and speeches about how ICP needs contributions from non-DFINITY developers. Well look no forther, someone offered to contribute yet all we hear is crickets and Wenzel belittling him.
So let’s try and focus on actionables. Who could provide us with a statement regarding Dfinity’s stance on the reset situation? If one was already provided and I missed, I apologise and would appreciate a link.
And most importantly, If @Accumulating.icp does the work for this reset to be implemented and it passes the code review, would DFINITY accept or reject it @diegop @bjoernek?
Looking forward to having more clarity on this
I will try to provide some insight into these questions by the EOW.
Thank you Lara, much appreciated!
I don’t know why do you have any issue with Wenzel speaking for Dfinity, he clearly is not. Just because Dfinity does not get involved it does not mean that anything said that you do not agree with is taking sides with them. Both of them have good arguments and at this point it really feels like you have something personal that does not fit into the topic at hand here.
Again just to be clear you came at the exact end of a long thread to pick on Wenzel, timing just seems off. It has nothing to do with the ability of @Accumulating.icp being able to contribute code to governance, maybe you know him and then again maybe you don’t. Personally I would argue against any code written by anyone who has put in BIO in the named neuron 20 years old.
So was I not quick enough in my replies to satisfy the criteria required for actually posting a reply?
I am over this Wenzel defocus, it’s a ridiculous waste of time as this thread shows. So let’s get back to the actual topic. I expect Dfinity would do a code review before accepting. This is obvious from my question aka “if it passes code review”.
The rest regarding age and stuff seems like your own thing to determine how it factors in your personal opinions on people’s competency.
I’ve never met @Accumulating.icp irl or seen his work, even tho we’ve discussed governance issues in the past…but he did offer to put in the work and show us all the results for assessment which I think deserves consideration.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, EOW is 2 days from now so we shall see.