In the interests of not increasing inflation with the NNS minting rewards from neurons that have not voted, a source of ICP that instead of being burned generating very little deflation would be all the ICP of rejected proposals coming from Spam, opportunism or proposals rejected by the community could go to a pot of rewards for the proposals that are accepted by the community.
This would not change the current ROI of rewards nor would the NNS increase the inflation from coining “unassigned” ICP from rewards from neurons that have not voted.
What continue with this?
on the one hand discouraging absurd or spam proposals and encouraging active participation in convenient smart solutions at any given time, and decentralization on the other.
Suppose that the pot of ICP minted from the proposals not accepted by the NNS is 1000 ICP at a given time, then conveniently a neuron X finds an improvement or solves a problem, the neurone X proposes to the NNS and its proposal is approved.
Now suppose that Neuron X has a voting power of 100 ICPs, of which 10 ICPs are from itself and the other 90 ICPs come from 9 other neurons that follow it with 10 ICPs each.
Those 1000 Reward ICPs from the pot would be assigned to the maturity of all those neurons via Neuron X with a 10% weighting for each of them, that is, 100 ICPs for each one.
what can we expect with this?
The extraordinary reward, being amount pre-established by the NNS (from rejected proposals), would encourage not only the appointment of new neurons, but also their active participation in governance. In addition, since the reward is a fixed amount to be distributed, the neurons with less voting power (for different reasons) would be more attractive to the followers since, in the case proposing and implementing a proposal, there would be more rewards to be distributed discouraging the accumulation of power and encouraging decentralization.
Obviously, this at the same time would encourage the active action of the community to look for the right partner periodically, discouraging passive voting and the stagnation of power that leads to apathy and corruption.
for example, before creating a given Governance proposal, a contest of proposals will be held with a certain duration so that the community has time to develop on a certain convenient topic.
To avoid the opportunistic rush of followers, once the proposal is uploaded by the neuron to the NNS, it will no longer be possible to follow that neuron during the voting process.
The winner decided by Nns would upload their proposal to vote to be implemented. if it is implemented then there is a prize. in this way we would squeeze the greatest potential of governance and community intelligence
Make it clear that those neurons that vote independently following or not a winning neuron of the proposal, will also take their reward +~ predictable by the current tokenomics @Sabr