Proposal 48623 passed on 14th March 2022 by a slim margin of 0.554%.
While reading the proposal I had a concern, simply that it was communicated poorly. I voted no. I understand the NNS should be a professional technical space, but all $ICP holders have a right to part-take in governance. Surely that means a proposal must be communicated in a simplified manner.
I grasped a gist, but I highly doubt a typical IC community member would’ve understood it’s message. Poor communication combined with a slim margin for victory should be grounds for re-election after re-assessment.
If it’s too late to re-analyze and re-vote on 48623, so be it. However, I call for stronger communication standards from (non-spam) proposals. 48623 is too complex. We should revise.
He who knows of what he speaks can communicate his thoughts to a child.
Further, do we not have standards for quorum in NNS governance? Shouldn’t something akin to quorum be included for a governance proposals that affect something so fundamental to the IC?
Lastly, do we not have a protocol for calling a re-evaluation and re-election?
Surely a win by 0.554% and extremely low participation can’t dictate such a massive change to the IC. Surely there are sub-optimal conditions for effective democracy!
There is much I don’t know, forgive my ignorance, but I hope you see my concern.
I completely agree, proposals should require a threshold over the opposing party to pass, if they do not meet this requirement it means the proposal didn’t have a clear consensus behind it and should go back to the drawing board.
I already expressed my thoughts on the matter in this thread: Decentralization on the IC moving forward
Unfortunately it seems the community is mostly focusing on the spam proposals issue at the moment.
Yes spam proposals are a genuine problem currently.
I really want Proposal 48623 revised, but I’m unfamiliar with the whole process.
I wonder if we can bring the ‘threshold’ issue to the forefront because this is very important.
I can see the point, but then the question goes to what the right threshold is.
Keep in mind that both DFINITY and the ICA abstained from voting on this proposal, so the % difference is actually greater if we ignore the “total voting power” and just focus on the participants that voted (it’s something like a 2% difference).
Both DFINITY and the ICA didn’t give a reason for abstaining, but it’s possible their governing boards/employees were mixed in terms of support, or they didn’t want to make a splash on such a controversial topic. The results would have been much, much different had they voted.
I don’t think there is a big problem with the adoption of 48623.
Imagine that if you have voted Yes to 48623 and then this proposal will be revoted or revised in some way, what will you think about NNS? Is that a joke?
You should insist on the principle of Neutrality when you try to fully examine the rule.
There is no hard evidence that this margin of 0.554% is indeed slim, especially when you see the fact that both ICPMN and Cycledao.xyz voted No (I don’t think every follower of them really wanted to vote No).
Every vote counts.
Strongly agree. I don’t necessarily agree with the proposal, but it seems to have won in a fair manner. To revote or revise it, the NNS would indeed be a joke.
What will happen when there’s something you may want, it passes but other people say they don’t like it and it should be revoted? I don’t think people would like that.
There is, however, nothing to stop you making a case to revert this change.
If you think that, with more time and information, people would come to a different decision, this kind of democracy is open to re-evaluation, but not revoking previous decision.
Since “I think we should all have fun” is currently a genuine text for a governance motion proposal, why not create one that simply says: “We should undo all changes put forward by #48623”.
In my opinion this has more weight than spam, because the outcome is actually a change to governance, plus it is fairly easy to implement as the contents of a particular change (commit) can be rolled back. In practice, it’s not quite so simple, but not too far away.
Yes, this opens the door to constantly re-voting on every proposal - the bottom line is, are you willing to put up 1 ICP to test it. Perhaps in this case an information campaign and a new vote could be a good idea. I would support a roll back, because it effectively places a cap on a neuron’s rewards, disincentivising staking longer than about 5.5 years.
