This answer doesn’t provide much clarification. Why would you personally be willing to donate 50% of earnings from a defi product that you build to fund NNS proposal reviews? Why is this funding your responsibility instead of the responsibility of the NNS? It would potentially make sense for very large organizations or whales with a lot of stake to contribute in this regard, but even that is questionable in the minds of many (which is why it hasn’t happened in the first 4 years of ICP existence). I’m not following why you would build a new defi product with the intent of using profits to fund NNS proposal reviews. What is the business case?
Require is the correct word. A person qualifies for governance rewards for taking 2 actions: 1) stake in a neuron with at least 6 month dissolve delay and 2) vote on proposals. Without 1, you can’t do 2. Without 2, you don’t get rewarded. Voting is a fundamental requirement even if you delegate your vote to someone else. Characterizing voting as a low effort activity or trivializing it under the disguise of liquid democracy is a misuse of our governance system. Every person is responsible for their own vote. My position remains that every person in the NNS should not be responsible for voting on the Followee configuration or the maturity distribution of a NNS controlled neuron.
This is true for every whale and is the reason that the so called elections through NNS Motion proposal ranking were the wrong approach. Difference between yes and no votes should not be used to rank outcomes because there are too many neurons with large stake that can completely swing the vote single handedly. These decisions should be yes or no based on simple majority for each applicant and each passing proposal should be funded. There should be no ranking. Synapse is the only neuron that had a voice in that process where the decision was made by a group of 14 volunteer Followees and the voting power that was triggered was sourced from neuron owners who chose to follow Synapse. They can just as easily choose to unfollow Synapse any time for any reason and I recommend that anyone who doesn’t trust Synapse should simply not follow us. All other large neurons that are voting on proposals own their own voting power, so they can swing the vote for whatever reason they want including their own conspiracy theories.
I agree we don’t need more sources of inflation. We can use the difference between the inflation committed as per the Voting Reward Function and the inflation actually distributed as maturity for voting. This Voting Reward Function should remain the cap on inflation.
@lara already gave you the same answer above that she has given you with every thread you have created on this topic. It’s become quite repetitive…she shows you grace by acknowledging what you want to achieve and then politely guides you in the direction you need to go. “Therefore, I think it would be great if we could come up with an alternative way to achieve what you are looking for without the need for a new special proposal. Perhaps one could use a custom canister that controls the neuron and encodes some rules when and why the neuron’s maturity etc can be disbursed?”
I agree it is awesome to see a project where people can donate to a stake such as D-QUORUM. It sounds like you may already have some major benefactors. As I commented previously, I really do hope to see this happen because in my opinion the whales and the large projects in the ecosystem really should be making contributions to NNS governance in this way. Regardless, you already are empowered to use the rewards from that stake without needing the NNS to be a controller of the neuron and without needing to create a new proposal topic that everyone on the NNS is required to vote.