Changes to governance proposals and voting reward weights (Proposal)

Actually, the delay in submitting the motion was just caused by an oversight at our end. Both Diego and I were OOO on Friday and we both thought the other proposer would create the motion. We will put it out today for a vote, unchanged, and have the NNS decide on it in principle. If the community wants to modify the weights, for example, a separate motion can be created for that.


Motion #34485 is live:

(please ignore motion #34484. That is an earlier proposal with typos)

1 Like

The motion proposal passed, but how can we tell if it was implemented and deployed?

I wonder if the code change has made it to the latest “Bless Replica Version” NNS proposal.


Reasonable question. Here is what I know:

  • the team has been working on making the code attached to the NNS updates transparent
  • I am not sure if this particular proposal’s code has been updated. I will ping the NNS team.
1 Like

There is an open merge request that implements this feature, but it has not yet been merged into the NNS canister.


Thanks for updating, John.


Do you know the timeline for implementing this change? Would you please send a link to the request?

1 Like

I do not know the timeline, and it is merge request 2447.

So in the recent medium article here(Proposal To Improve ICP Governance Staking Re: Tax and Tokenomics | by Dominic Williams | The Internet Computer Review | Jan, 2022 | Medium),

Dom states:

“IMPORTANT REMINDER: as of a recent network update, neurons can no longer vote automatically on “motion” proposals, and you must therefore remember to manually vote on motion proposals to receive your maximum voting reward, especially since motion proposals are also now weighted more highly.”

Is the statement from Dom different than implementing the change in this topic?

I’m sure that statement is a direct result of this deliberation, which resulted in proposal (34485), which passed. However, that proposal had no code changes attached. I have been looking for it to be implemented programmatically, but I’m sure the proposal has not been implemented yet.

When it does get implemented, I think what Dom means is that neurons will no longer be configured with any Followee on the Governance topic unless they manually configure a Followee. Currently, the All Topics catch all includes the Governance topic and all neurons are configured to follow ICA on All Topics by default when the neuron is created. Changing the Followee on All Topics or adding any Followee to any individual topics (including Governance) is a manual action.

So the change is not yet implemented.

When it is implemented, in order to get maximum gain, the neuron holder will either :

(a) need to vote manually on all proposals for governance topic


(b) manually change the followee on the governance topic so that they can automatically follow the followee for proposals on the governance topic.

Is this correct understanding?

1 Like

Looking at the internal code proposal, the default followee will not cause your neuron to vote on Governance topics, but an explicit followee still will. This may change in the near future, but that’s the current status of the work.


When this proposal is implemented, I think it will incentivize the IC community to submit more Governance proposals. Since Governance motion proposals do not have any code attached, I think it is likely that the vast majority of the proposals that are actionable will rely on Dfinity to implement if they pass. Could you please explain how that will work? How do we know if and when DF will prioritize implementation among existing activities? Or is the vision that most proposals can somehow be implemented by the community? I know there are efforts in progress to make submitting proposals easier for everyone. I suspect there is a plan being developed that enables the community to some day push code with proposals. I’m just trying to get a sense of timeline and expectations from the DF perspective in case this proposal stimulates high interest from the IC community to see more governance proposals due to voting reward changes.

@diegop @johan @jwiegley @Manu @christian @timo

The implementation of this proposal (Introduce voting reward weights and remove default following on the G… · dfinity/ic@eaa04ff · GitHub) is now merged to master (Thursday last week) and will be included in the next Governance canister upgrade proposal (today or tomorrow).


@diegop is this still happening?


Yes it is. NNS frontend dapp will b updated as well


Minor nit: is it possible to enable selecting text in the Proposal Summary? I can’t click on any of the links in the Proposal Summary section for any proposal in the NNS dapp. I also can’t select neuron IDs to copy and paste elsewhere.

1 Like

Not all proposals render properly on NNS frontend dapp (being worked on), but I recommend clicking on links from dashboard version of proposal. That’s what I do: Internet Computer Network Status

Thank you for taking the time to clear my doubts.

Your position is correct and I was mistaken.

I contacted the entity responsible for creating the spam proposal directly and they confirmed ICPMaximalist had no part in it.

I must say I’m impressed that you took the time to clear my doubts.

I feel much more confident in Dfinity and ICP. Thank you!

1 Like

Thank you @Johnchiby .

Your intellectual honesty, good faith questions are very helpful. I am sure many people had the same, but you had the initiative to ask proactively. No small thing. Thank you once more.

By the way, I think you meant to reply here :wink::

1 Like