Okay, you’re of the opinion that the IC doesn’t need to demonstrate any tangible governance decentralisation until it’s at the end of its road map (if it were even able to get that far under such conditions), 10 or 20 years down the road? I don’t think this is a popular opinion. It’s certainly one that would make me turn my back on the IC (if it were the status quo). Thankfully it’s not, and this is why huge effort has gone into making IC OS versions verifiable, why we have initiatives like the Grants for Voting neurons, and why significant effort is going into designing a better governance incentives framework. Because the existing one doesn’t work.
You’re making an assumption, and not acknowledging that significant natural incentives already exist (and rewards are minted on the assumption that those natural incentives work). Your suggestion about a future ICOS arrangement isn’t generalisable to other NNS topics, and I’m also sceptical that such a system would even be well suited to the ICOS election topic and/or the deployment of ICOS versions to specific subnets.
How so? We shouldn’t be depending on any one mechanism.
This is all that’s being suggested. Maturity cascades to followees has been on the table for a long time. I’m simply suggesting a less drastic and more flexible solution by suggesting that it should be an opt in feature, with flexibility for neurons to choose how much maturity they share.
Cool, thanks