Makes sense. I feel like so much of what I have always understood and believed about the NNS is evolving rapidly in the last few days.
Perhaps Governance Motion proposals (soft topics) should be a separate system based on POH with 1 person, 1 vote, with a lot less financial reward tied to it so people get a lot less visceral about governance.
Perhaps the NNS is supposed to be oligarchic, not democratic, and should only be used to govern the protocol.
Perhaps it would be better to have simple staking, minimal work, and low expectation for active participation.
@diegop I think he is referring to the weighting of the governance proposals from 1 to 20 which is a proposal that ICPMN/Synapse championed and it was this proposal that created the incentives for spam proposal in the first place.
Have you noticed the spam has all but stopped now that weighting was reset?
But now we have a spam proposal which in my opinion has nothing to do with spam…
If slashing can’t be programmatic the IC’s in trouble IMO. If you want to get to play by the rules of autonomous protocols you have to be… autonomous. If you have humans deciding what’s what, expect other humans working for nation states to either bring the system under their control or isolate it if they can’t (ban the coin from exchanges, permissioned stablecoins, etc).
I thought nothing could disappoint me more than yours and David’s giddy calculations on how much money can be siphoned out of the network and into a centralized organisation: A Call to Action: Using the NNS for Growth but the thought of NNS as an oligarchy is truly discouraging.
I would hate to see us turn a beautiful web3 vision into this.
2. Historically: Most (95%) spam or junk proposals came from the same entity. If any one actor has produced spam, it was examples like this. Now, to be intellectually honest, they created the spam due to the tokenomics incentives, so I would still point at the tokenomics as the true culprit:
Hahaha, let us assume the increased proposal rejection cost is implemented.
If you also want to increase your daily earnings, you can donate to my proposal account using the following formula: a367ed0ae66218194aafc9fb484dd78cc78fa28b57f4cc69b106e6aafd7403ea
Once a month: [Amount of donations] = [Amount of stake ICP] * 0.01% 30
Once a week: [Amount of donations] = [Amount of stake ICP] * 0.01% 7
Once a day: [Amount of donations] = [Amount of stake ICP] * 0.01% 1
I only need to receive a daily 0.01% maturity donation of 0.05% of the total neurons per day to continue increasing the yield for you.
This is the 16th proposal in a 30 day series of Governance motion proposals that will be submitted to the NNS. These proposals each describe something educational about IC governance. The action that is requested with these proposals is for you to demonstrate participation in governance by voting. The neurons that vote will get voting rewards whether or not these proposals are adopted or rejected. For more information, please visit the deliberation on the forum topic linked below. You can also find all past daily governance proposals in this series on the dashboard.
But he only did it for 1 month. Is this what you refer to?
4. I do not recall nor can I find ANY motion proposal by ICPMN on this topic that has been implemented.
The closest thing I have seen to what you are saying is two things:
a. ICPMN members have created forum posts or comments on their thoughts on spam and junk proposals. This is not new, MANY people have done this. None really became motion proposals that have been implemented.
b. People on ICPM telegram channel do share ideas, and maybe it appears that these ideas were created by then or implemented.
If I am not mistaken, @AndraGeorgescu , the sentence that ‘perhaps the NNS is supposed to be oligarchic’ was a lament at the way things appear to be moving in discussions rather than a plea for oligarchy. But @wpb can clarify.
Isn’t all this discussion a result of the IC being governed entirely by a centralised entity called Dfinity? It seems a way of getting away from total centralisation. Perhaps the result will still be partial centralisation because of a few named neurons having a lot of power, but partial decentralisation seems better than the complete centralisation we currently have, and perhaps a step in the path to full decentralisation. Maybe I am being naive, I would really like some opinions on the worth of a treasury broadly defined, aside from the intra-community sniping which might be justified (there is so much that prominent builders on the network like you have inside knowledge of) but perhaps also misses the forest for the trees.
Denis I really want to believe that and I’m going to try to see from this perspective because the alternative is frankly daunting. Nevertheless, in light of recent discussions it was an uninspired choice of words.
@AndraGeorgescu why don’t you quote the entire point that was made? “…govern the protocol” is an important point. Who do you think does that today? Not a single named neuron governs the protocol today. It 100% belongs to DFINITY due to default following on All Topics, and rightly so. I would not trust anyone else (named neurons or otherwise) to govern the protocol and we are not moving in the direction where anyone else will at this time. There are no other contributors to the IC and there are no incentives for anyone to go there.
The previous paragraph addresses the desire for proper democracy. Token voting on governance is not democracy. The Synapse.m neuron has zero control over who follows us and we trigger more voting power than a lot of people, including me, are comfortable with today. Yet governance motion proposals do not govern the internet computer. They are an expression of opinion only with no enforceable outcome. Again, DFINITY alone decides if a governance motion proposal will be implemented because only they are contributors to the internet computer. My point was that if you want to have a voice in governance motion proposals, then we need PoH and 1 person 1 vote system. That’s a different system architecture than we have today. I shouted from the rooftops that we need more names neurons starting back in February and nobody except Synapse, Arthur, and ICDevs stepped up until recently. Tokenomic incentives drive change as we saw in February. It will take more tokenomic incentives and more changes to the NNS to drive additional rebalancing of voting power, yet I still don’t think that will achieve the democracy that we want. We will have these same conversations over and over and over. “Stop changing the tokenomics.” “We need an ethos.” “X named neuron has too much voting power (which somehow makes them corrupt)”. Etc etc etc. I’d like to see a system that evokes less visceral responses from everyone so people like you and me, as individuals, have a bigger voice. I created the Synapse neuron with 10 ICP, at the blessing of leaders in the ICPMN, and today we trigger 10% of the total voting power in the NNS. We have a well rounded, representative mix of voting members, who are well known in the community, who have dedicated themselves to voting with their own convictions on every governance motion proposal in ways that they believe are in the long term best interest of the IC. Yet, important people like you have arrived at this hatred of our neuron and are perfectly fine with calling us corrupt. I literally said that maybe we should consider that democracy should come from 1 person 1 vote so every individual has a bigger voice and our governance system doesn’t have to depend on named neurons that carry a lot of voting power due to follow selections made by others.
@wpb come on, man. This is a bit aggressive towards Andra from my POV. This is unlike you. I can understand why you are frustrated, but I think we can do better. Don’t let the internet (and it’s lack of context) drive you and us to this. I know it’s easy for me to say, so wanted to let you know I can see the obvious frustrations, but we can do better… even if it means writing and rewriting until your true personality and intent comes through. DM me a draft if you ever want second set of eyes (btw this is open invitation to anyone who ever thinks they need second set of eyes).
I had to say something because I think it’s important we have respectful tone in discussing ideas.
You are right. I was referring to concepts expressed by @kpeacock in that tweet, but didn’t know if he wanted me to publicly reference him on those ideas. It’s certainly not an NNS take home message that I have read from any official DFINITY literature. However, it makes a lot of sense in a lot of contexts and I can imagine a fully functional, decentralized, governance system could be created based on these concepts.
Wow. Why do you take everything as an insult or at face value? I’m talking about your pre-edited comment. We are all adults here and there is no need to throw tantrums. Nobody is attacking you or Synapse, and @AndraGeorgescu has been more than respectful and has only posted well-founded criticism to the current state of the IC governance.
My opinion is the following: It’s not a valid excuse to say ‘well DFINITY is the big dog and it controls everything!’, because if Synapse decides to push for a specific proposal such as the NNS Treasury, DFINITY may be coerced into implementing it in the purpose of maintaining the ‘decentralisation’ of the network and the usefulness of the NNS.
Nobody is attacking you, yet you seem to react heavily to arguments that put your position in jeopardy.