Changes to governance proposals and voting reward weights (Proposal)

I 100% agree with your sentiment.

However, encouraging manual voting also encourages thoughtless voting. For example, say manual voting received a 2x multiplier. Then you are paying people to vote arbitrarily and diminishing the returns of thoughtful delegators. The prop as it stands is two steps in the right direction. It increases the reward weighting of major decisions and shifts people off the Foundation neuron for such decisions. We can continue the conversation about how to decentralise governance further here. Incidentally, People Parties have a role to play in the future of decentralising governance on the IC and diversifying influence away from the current plutocratic model so right there is a whole bunch of stuff to think about. If we are really doing this in the next 10 days better that it be a minimalist proposal. A journey of a thousand miles . . .


I share your concern about thoughtless voting, but I also think the majority of that concern is resolved by effective deliberation prior to voting, keeping the voting period reasonably short, and a concise yet complete summary presented to the voter as part of the proposal. If you give people clear and consistent information, then the votes that are cast are less likely to be thoughtless.

1 Like

Thank you, you are right, my suggestion would require much more time to consider, develop etc (I previously overlooked the time constraints).

Still I can’t agree with

  • people who vote have staked neurons and their goal is increase of it’s value
  • to achieve above, most voters would get at least basic overview and vote to the best of their knowledge
  • indeed not everyone is able to consider all possible consequences of specific proposal - and in such case the vote might be considered thoughtless - but frankly, who is…

But this would be more for a philosophical discussion with glass of beer, again thank you for the response, for me I’ll most likely approve when this gets to NNS.

1 Like

I also think that forcing manual voting doesn’t necessarily favor automatic voting, because that assumes people who have staked only want the reward, rather than having an effect on the system, even though that effect may directly impact future rewards. Whether it’s automatic or manual, I imagine a person’s interest in the outcome of proposals would remain basically the same, except that with manual voting they can’t rely on someone else to make the decision for them. When they don’t know enough to make an informed vote, I imagine they will be likely just follow the current majority as another way to “go with what others think”.


You sure @dominicwilliams has been verified by People Party? :wink:


We have a complex issue with multiple factors. This direction is the most sensible for embracing decentralized governance.

Allowing people to explicitly follow neurons they trust is also vital. Some people may not have time everyday to login and vote (E.g. students/healthcare workers/parents with small children/etc). The NNS runs as smooth as possible, but it’s a little clunky and requires a bit of patience (maybe only on iOS?). I know, with my schedule, I wouldn‘t keep up with manual daily voting.

On the flip side, if only manual voting was available, we could fight inflation :thinking::joy:.

I am an ordinary user who pledged for 8 years and have always followed the community fund to vote. The reason why I followed is not mandatory, but the level of awareness within the entire system is limited, and many votes will get results. I don’t know how meaningful he represents and whether it is correct. In this case, if I can vote, I would vote for the neutral option, but he didn’t, so I chose to follow the community fund because I believe in the community fund. If manual voting can increase voting rights and revenue, then users like me will be confused between right and wrong to vote, which will affect the correctness of the voting results, so the choice of following the community fund is as a person like me. The best choice for users like me, because we choose neurons that we trust instead of letting us disturb the voting results or follow whether a neuron is the same as me. This result is terrible. What I worry about is the neuron voting result. Correctness is distorted.

1 Like

Hey @diegop and @johan was there anything actionable in this deliberation that is causing you to rethink this proposal? I noticed an NNS motion hasn’t been presented yet and you indicated that a proposal would be made in a week when it was first posted 11 days ago. I’m just curious about your current thinking.

This proposal would have a profound effect on voting for governance proposals. I know many opinions have been expressed so far, but I’m not sure if you think any of it is actionable. If seems reasonable to make changes if you want, but it also seems reasonable to let the governing body vote via NNS proposal in the current form.

1 Like

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.