Please don’t waste my time with unproductive stuff.
The original proposal about periodic followee confirmation was submitted and voted on with the main motivation to disencourage spam proposals. The proposal’s objective said “This discrepancy in participation rates is an incentive to submit spam proposals for the purpose of receiving higher voting rewards […] This proposal aims to remove this incentive […]”. Spam proposals in this context are proposals that are just sent to increase the rewards for some governance participants without having actionable content.
DFINITY voted yes on the proposal with the primary purpose of addressing spam concerns. Since the original proposal, the NNS achieved spam prevention by 1) an increase of the proposal fee and 2) adjusting the voting rewards as explained here. Therefore, DFINITY no longer believes that spam, as defined above, is a concern at this time, so other areas deserve more design and engineering resources.
The proposal does provide other side effects some people like as well, but with the main motivation (spam) for it gone, it seems prudent to discuss whether it is actually the best solution for the aspects that before were more of a side-effect.
Therefore, we suggest that if periodic followee confirmation should be realized for a reason other than spam prevention, then this should again be put to voting on the NNS.
This would help with
- Understanding if the NNS voters agree with the new proposed goals.
- Understanding if the NNS voters see a need for this feature in the context of these new goals.
- Focussing the discussion on more concrete concerns and questions.
3 Likes
Hah been a member for under a month. Has only commented on threads regarding this follower neuron reset… get lost mate.
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).
Thats perfectly fine, as I have stated I am more than willing to do the work, and submit it to your team for a review, before submitting it to the NNS (even though all NNS props are scrutinized upon by DFINITY engineers).
So in other words, given you no longer see a benefit to this proposal (being the inflation of rewards), you’d like to void the outcome of the original governance proposal passed by the NNS, and re-propose it until we get an outcome we agree with?
Is DFINITY self-assigning 100% of voting power to themselves upon Genesis, indefinitely, not a concrete concern? If not, why have DFINITY employees acknowledged it as such in the past - and reassured prioritized action in regards to the matter?
I can’t help but feel as though this topic has been constantly diverted in an effort to put a stop to it.
We’ve heard “resources” cited for the last year. I’ll do the code.
Now it’s a design flaw. Here’s an amendment.
Now we want to completely void the followee reset because we don’t think it’s relevant anymore.
I’d appreciate if this was addressed objectively.
As per my memory, it would have enabled the spammers to steal more voting rewards from passive Neuron
1 Like
Hey @Accumulating.icp it seems this suggestion by @lara is a good idea. I agree with your comment that it should be addressed objectively. I’d be willing to follow up to offer an objective way to address this issue via the NNS by revisiting the original proposal since I was an original author. However, I’d like to know if you prefer to address it objectively with your Absolute Majority Weight Proposal? Could you please help me understand your plans at this time? I don’t want to interfere, but I do want the discussion to move forward in a productive and diplomatic way.
3 Likes
My notifications blew up with this thread. i am going to ask you to please take it down a notch. I can appreciate humorous jabs, but this is too much.
As a moderator, I ask you please moderate your language moving on so we can have the dialogue we want in this developer forum.
2 Likes
I can add a bit to what @lara wrote @Accumulating.icp:
- 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
- In parallel, there seems to have been narrative that i was not about spam, but about tactics. to improve decentralization. whether one agrees with whether those tactics were beneficial or not, those were always side effects of the proposal.
This is why you saw:
- DFINITY and its followers voted yes
- DFINITY did NOT prioritize it when spam was less an issue
- 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.
- 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?
if so…why do they believe spam is an issue?
If not… then adding code for a side effect instead of the main intent of the proposal is also a bit messy.
2 Likes
These two comments are just asking for conflict, folks. I am leaving them there for transparency but i did remove some other comments which were flagged
4 Likes
For the record, I am leaving this comment because while unhelpful it is just you disagreeing with the moderation process, not anything against people (such as the other comments I removed)
2 Likes
Moderator note:
Please note that:
- Some comments were flagged by the community due to disruptive behavior
- When i chose to removed some of them, the system also removed direct replies
- People may have seen comments removed that were themselves harmless., but were in a bad chain so they got dragged in with the rest when the parent was removed.
Thank you all who flagged the comments. Community needs folks like you to help keep it healthy.
And sorry for anyone whose harmless comment got removed due to the removing of a flagged parent comment.
4 Likes
Thanks for the response Diego,
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.
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?
I get the feeling this is the crux of what you’re trying to find out and accomplish. With all of the baggage from past proposals, I would think it would be best to start fresh and submit a new proposal laser focused on this one issue and see what happens.
You’re asking them to tell you which way they would vote, which is never going to happen. In my opinion, it wouldn’t be smart for a company to tell you how they’re going to vote because in a lot of minds, that would constitute a “promise”, and by the time the proposal actually makes it to the NNS, things (employees, priorities, other proposals, the market) could change for better or worse. Also, you theoretically could put a bunch of other stuff in it they don’t like, and when they vote against it, throw dirt and say “you said you would yes on this.” If you aren’t going to code it up or submit a proposal without a firm answer on how they would vote, I don’t think it will never get done.
As I told you before, I appreciate your goal and what you’re trying to do!
2 Likes
Says a lot about the decentralization of our blockchain, and the importance & weight of governance proposals, doesn’t it?
DFINITY has voiced their opinions regarding proposals and governance countless times in the past. If they’re refusing to do so now, it’s because they don’t like what the proposal would do to their influence.
I’m asking for articulable & objective reasoning regarding why both the Periodic Followee Confirmation proposal & the Absolute Majority Adjustment proposals are invalid.
So far, we’ve heard they don’t have resources, then there was a design flaw, now they have just decided the proposal is invalid (after stating this was a top priority Oct 2022).
Clearly this is about the fact that it jeopardizes their 99% control on the network (as they have stated in their design flaw reasoning) - not internal corporate affairs.
This would at least give them an articulable reason to reject.
Ive stated that if DFINITY accepts the help, I will be writing these proposals exactly as they’re written in the proposals.
In the hypothethical instance you state, they could simply say “he didn’t make the proposal how he said he would”.
Just so we’re still on the same page, I think you have a good idea and would love to see the proposals.
With that said, you keep asking if they’ll do it and they have now told you no, they aren’t going to do it. So then in my mind, it falls on members of the community to get it done. You can say you don’t want to do it because it will just be voted down until their majority changes, but their majority won’t change because the proposals aren’t getting submitted. So it just stays the same.
Fair enough.
@diegop removing my posts in the name of “moderation” and adding a new context doesn’t change the underlying fact that this forum is rife with censorship, just like the network in general.
DFINITYs poor security assumptions enabled the seed investor to 51% attack a DAO and drain its treasury. Funny to me you guys try to rebrand it as something good lol
Calling me a narcissist, censoring posts and derailing the context doesn’t change the fact that this is a big Fat L that DFINITY can’t swallow. Funny how DFINITYs credibility is basically non existent. Wouldn’t be surprised if you guys rebrand the next 51% attack as some new project.
FYI I didn’t initiate the conversation with Borevan.
It’s been clear for a long time they’re not going to do it. I’ve been asking them to allow me to write code for the topics that have passed via NNS for them, not that they do it themselves.
Again, this says a lot about our decentralization, doesn’t it?
- DFINITY assigns themselves 100% of Voting Power upon Genesis
- DFINITY assures this will be addressed & decentralized over time
- DFINITY decides to retain ~99%+ Voting Power indefinitely - it is the communities issue, not theirs
- DFINITY says “if you want to write it, go for it, but we’re not passing it” (even though the proposal passed via NNS once already)
- DFINITY then decides the original proposal is void, and must be rewritten and re-proposed, unilaterally
Even if I were to submit a proposal, without their permission, I am simply wasting my valuable time and burning energy.
3 Likes
Goodmorning @bjoernek @lara @diegop ,
I was just wondering if we can expect a reply from DFINITY regarding my previous two responses, this proposal, and in turn the decentralization of the network. Thanks
2 Likes
Id just lock this thread, these people will never stop their nonsense.
2 Likes
Ask around maybe you can buy it, just kidding. Appreciate the feedback, pretty sure it’s not the nonsense you’re used to but you can always apply for moderator status.
1 Like