This is a good reason why there should be a separate proposal for the goal you want, then no?
It honestly does not matter HOW The proposal helps spam, it matters that the proposal was written with an implementation to help address spam. If you do not think that will help spam, then you are saying the proposal is not something we should follow.
I think you can see how working on a proposal that even its ardent proponents do not believe in is bad software engineering design.
In all honesty, I must express my deep disappointment regarding the continuous letdowns that have been occurring. It’s disheartening to witness a thread that was meant for meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas being marred by childish comments and digressions. It’s frustrating to see the potential for constructive dialogue go to waste.
I had hoped that we could engage in a thoughtful conversation where ideas are challenged and insights are shared. Instead, we’ve encountered a series of disappointments that have hindered any progress. It’s disconcerting to witness the lack of respect and maturity displayed by some participants, as it undermines the purpose of this forum.
It’s important for us to remember that we can express our opinions passionately without resorting to aggression. We should strive for an environment where factual information is presented and discussed objectively, fostering growth and understanding. Let’s refocus our efforts on rekindling the meaningful conversation that initially drew us here.
I urge everyone to rise above the immaturity and negativity that has plagued this thread thus far. Together, we can redirect our energy towards productive and enlightening discussions. It’s my hope that we can collectively contribute to a positive and respectful atmosphere that encourages intellectual exchange and helps us move forward as a community.
Let us acknowledge the disappointments we have faced and use them as motivation to rebuild this discussion with the sincerity and seriousness it deserves
Let me explain this in a visual way:
In Q1’22, two changes led to a spam proposal incentive: (1) Default following for the governance topic was reset; (2) The governance topic received a higher reward weight of 20.
These changes affected voting reward distribution as seen in this image (rows represent voters, columns represent weighted proposals). Note: active voters benefitted from non-active voters on the governance topic.
With spam governance proposals, rewards for active voters increased further, as seen in the next image.
The introduction of period confirmation of followees would have prevented this spam incentive in the following way:
I hope this clarifies.
To be fair:
Well said @Ivan . I agree.
I understand your frustration with the repetitive nature of the discussion, but it’s important to approach the conversation with respect and open-mindedness. While it may feel like we’re going in circles, it’s essential to consider different perspectives and engage in constructive dialogue.
However, if you believe that the conversation has become stagnant or unproductive, it could be helpful to introduce new angles or fresh ideas to stimulate meaningful discussion. Let’s focus on exploring different viewpoints, seeking common ground, and finding potential solutions together. By doing so, we can move beyond the repetition and foster a more fruitful exchange of ideas.
We have seen multiple proposals by ICPMaximalist Network, of which many were submitted by @wpb , and in the process knowingly or unknowingly, voters were able to appropriate rewards from other passive neurons. A morally sane person would assume that this is stealing, but I’m not gonna use that word here.
This undermines the credibility of on-chain governance. This is where the spamming started and the whitehat spammer continued to spam the NNS with proposals to mock the actions of two large organizations that have total control over the network.
So would it be safe to say that you have the cause of spam proposals backwards and raised the limit of proposal submission cost to avoid this mockery?
Hope we move past abusing the most powerful on-chain governance DAO for our selfish gains and truly decentralize the network with meaningful proposals ( not the ones that are lobbied behind closed doors )
How am I making this jump? Because I’m not asking DFINITY to invest any resources - I’m offering to do the work, find solutions, create working groups, etc. - to which Ive been handed a new “barrier” at every step of the way.
First it is resources.
Then it is a design flaw.
Now the proposal isn’t valid because DFINITY doesn’t like the effects.
Again, why is that DFINITY gets to decide which proposals, that have passed, are and are not valid? If DFINITY did their due diligence, should this outcome not have been considered?
“We’re going to fix spam, by removing other people from the reward pool - and inflating our own rewards”…. Where is the fix…?
DFINITY’s decision to implement the Absolute Majority Weight system demonstrates their commitment to maintaining an efficient and inclusive governance framework. This argument aims to justify why DFINITY made the right choice by embracing the Absolute Majority Weight system and the positive impacts it can have on decision-making processes.
Conclusion: DFINITY’s choice to implement the Absolute Majority Weight system reflects their commitment to effective governance, fair representation, and the long-term stability of the network. By ensuring sound decision-making, balancing stakeholder interests, enhancing network stability, and strengthening trust and legitimacy, this system contributes to the overall success of DFINITY. Through this thoughtful decision, DFINITY sets an example for other networks, showcasing the importance of inclusive and well-considered governance mechanisms in building robust blockchain ecosystems.
When I’ve asked you about this, you’ve told me “if […] can’t understand the concept, that is […] problem”
When I pressed it, you told me that this fixes spam by removing people from the voting pool - and in turn increasing the rewards of those remaining.
I’ve already explained to you very thoroughly, this does not prevent spam, as the “spammers” are active governance participants who utilize the NNS to spam + collect rewards.
You are simply inflating the spam rewards.
To be simple @Accumulating.icp :
you do not like the proposal’s goal (you do not believe it helps spam). Why do you fight for it? DFINITY does buy into the connection between the implementation and the goal of the proposal.
wow sorry, that was v3.5 I thought I was using v4
** Just trying to lighten the mood a little
LOL I was wondering what was going on
Please read through this conversation, as I believe I have made it abundantly clear why I am passionate about this.
Spam Proposals were an issue because of how rewards were distributed.
There was a set amount of rewards to be distributed amongst all voting members on a daily basis. This has been amended through @skilesare System Based to Voter Based Reward proposal.
Removing more people from the reward pool would have only further dramatized the effects & profitability of spam.
Which is why I say; resetting followees doesn’t fix spam, it makes it better.
I personally believe it has become stagnant. Dfinity has stated they will not be implementing the previous proposal, and stated their reason why. Whether members agree with them or not, that’s where they stand. If anyone wants to move forward, as I said above, it is my belief someone should start fresh and submit a new proposal focused on one issue (followee reset) and get the current pulse of the voting community.
HELLO GUYS
This is like a school playground
I didn’t realise all the drama was here 
I have been asking if the proposed amendment absolves their “design flaw”.
The topic has since shifted to “The proposal should be void”
I’m not asking them to do the work anymore. I’m essentially asking them to check mine - since it’s clear they aren’t pursuing this, yet are the ones actively circumventing it.
F*ck checking it, just DO IT! 
ICPMN has never submitted a proposal. My neuron ID is 12008772471346176261 and the dashboard shows all proposal that I have ever submitted. None of them are spam. They are all intended to advance decentralization and the long term best interest of the ICP. You are more than welcome to DYOR.
Doesn’t the fact that Dfinity have to make a proposal to adjust any code changes to the system make ICP more decentralised then 98% of the remaining crypto market? Most chains can do whatever they like. Most “DAOs” are a misnomer, let be honest.
Dfinity has the most voting power? Obviously. I would prefer them sailing the ship as this early stage considering they built it. Lol
