I understand this perspective. I struggled a lot with whether or not a governance proposal should be used in this way, but in the end decided it is consistent with what I believe I have heard from various people at Dfinity regarding the proper use of governance proposals. In a lot of ways I think it is similar to how dfinity used governance proposals to get the IC community to bless the Long Term R&D roadmap in Dec 2022. Those 25 proposals were not specific NNS changes that were being proposed, but they were presented in a way that enabled the IC community to confirm desirable action by Dfinity.
Iâm also looking at it from the perspective that Dfinity so far has not provided much input on all the forum topics that have been submitted to address spam proposals. I happen to think that communication about tokenomics changes is an important part of the solution, so Iâd like to put it out there to see what the governing body thinks (including Dfinity).
Iâm sorry for responding after the proposal but I wasnât aware of this deliberation.
Voting NO, because ICP is a decentralized protocol and IMO the more responsibilities we put on DFINITY the harder it will be to get rid of the omnipresent perception that DFINITY is âowningâ it. I donât even think DFINITY is responsible for at least two of the proposals linked in the summary, so Iâm not sure why a communication from them is necessary beyond what NNS did via proposals. Proposals are exactly there to inform the community. So I think if somebody feels strongly about reaching out to the most passive part of the community, then they should take care of it contributing to the decentralization of the ecosystem.
Am I missing some nuance in what you are saying? In the proposal description it says once you run out of sufficient âstaked ICPâ it will just create newly minted ICP instead. (Proposed Changes - 3b)
So Iâm confused on why you are saying people would run out of âneuron moneyâ. I had to go back and read the proposal to make sure I didnât misunderstand it when I voted on it and I am still understanding it the same way I originally did.
To my understanding, the only difference would be that the newly minted ICP would be subject to the +/- 5%.
Iâm also looking at it from the perspective that Dfinity so far has not provided much input on all the forum topics that have been submitted to address spam proposals
It was important to us to not only answer to each of the solutions but to also propose a more systematic way how different solutions can be assessed and compared. We have now published our proposal here. As mentioned we would also like to participate in the different discussions. I will lead this effort from our side. As so many discussions happen in parallel it might of course be that we missed something. Please feel free to flag individual interesting ideas to us (best to directly tag me) in case we missed any!
I was torn on this one. I agree with @Manu and @christian that the NNS should not be used as a platform for requesting action from Dfinity.
That being said; I donât see how this proposal is any different than previous proposals. Motion proposals are seen as a tool for the community to communicate their wants & needs to Dfinity. If the foundation doesnât agree with this narrative, then they should state that publicly. I would support them on this. Until then, Iâm going to assume business as usual.
Who knew maintaining and upgrading the world computer was so hard?
The network that has majority influence over the NNS and drafting most of the adopted proposal refuses to take up responsibility for voting by stating that they are voting independently with their own conviction. No word outside forums, Nothing. Just a tweet maybe. Can DAOs do something?
I think the objection expressed with @Manu and @christian and @bjoern (Twitter) had more to do with this proposal not being a proposal for an NNS code change. My interpretation is that requests from Dfinity are ok as long as they are actionable code changes. AFAIK there are no actionable code change proposals that can be acted upon by the community other than Register Known Neuron. Hence, every proposal initiated by the community is a request for Dfinity to take action if it passes.
I agree with you that I have heard from folks at Dfinity in the past that they want us to submit proposals requesting action by Dfinity and I donât think the narrative has been about just NNS code changes. I donât mind a different narrative, but it would be really helpful if Dfinity would offer clarification of the purpose of proposals. Perhaps the litmus test should be more than just âis it actionableâ and âhas it been well deliberated by the communityâ. I donât think this proposal is out of sync with what I have heard communicated in the past regarding the purpose of proposals.
To me, this proposal requests action from Dfinity because it seeks to use a resource that only they can accessâŚexisting email distribution lists that are most likely to reach current stakers. It is not intended to be a highly time consuming effort, but rather a simple and effective message using a communication channel that has not been tapped yet in order to reach participants that donât use social media and are more likely to use traditional communication channels.
In my view NNS proposals should be about the Internet Computer and how the IC should work. The fact that today it is the DFINITY foundation actually making those code changes is irrelevant, hopefully in the future we have many people in the ecosystem developing. Theoretically anybody today can propose a replica version.
So i agree that âactionableâ and âwell deliberatedâ are requirements for a good NNS proposals, but probably not sufficient. I would like to add âthe proposal is about the ICâ to the list. If itâs only a question to the foundation, I donât think the NNS is the right place (even though I think itâs a great question for the foundation and I hope the foundation will pick this up).
I think this requirement may need a bit more clarification. I would say that this proposal has met this criteria as currently written. The proposal is about communication of IC tokenomics changes that will hopefully lead to higher rates of governance participation and decentralization using a resource that only Dfinity can access. To me, itâs all about improving the health of the IC. Hence, if this were the requirement then I would still think this proposal meets that criteria.
Perhaps the requirement should be written in a way that describes actions that should not be requested from Dfinity, but that might make it too complicated.
At the end of the day itâs just a judgement call form each voter on what is appropriate and what is not. I get concerned when we claim that the NNS should not be used to make actionable requests from Dfinity. All community initiated proposals today are requests for Dfinity to take action, but I agree with your point that it will not be that way long term.
@wpb already knows this but here is what we at DFINITY think about this proposal:
We like the intent and agree with the problem defined, and aim to cooperate
We will vote NO because of what some may consider a technicality but is important: NNS proposals should not be used to compel other community entities to do things.
