DFINITY Foundation’s vote on Governance proposal #80970 (“Spam proposal”) and #86639 ("Temperature Check")

Hi Diego,

I want to respond to point #2… I consider this to be a clear objective of theirs from the beginning.

If not, why would @skilesare mention his preference to use the “abandoned ICP” to create a treasury in the spam proposal (and several additional times). How can you present of funding a treasury with a proposal to create “abandoned ICP” if not premeditated?!

@wpb has also indicated his preference as well to use this ICP to create a treasury.

So I really don’t like the framing of this as some of us in the community are misinterpreting their explicit words.

If they aren’t linked then reduce inflation as a result of the change to voter-based rewards…do not allow tracking of “abandon ICP”…and create a separate proposal on minting ICP via higher inflation to fund a treasury.

1 Like

You literally mentioned your intention/preference in the proposal.

1 Like

@AndraGeorgescu your questions to Dfinity are certainly valid, there is a sense in the way the proposal was drafted that its true purpose might be a treasury fund. @skilesare provided an answer by way of a timeline check, but that was not apparent in the proposal draft.
My question to you is that I get the feeling, perhaps mistaken, that you are opposed to the idea of a treasury funded by ‘abandoned icp’. If this is the case, I would love to hear why, because @dfisher 's post on the treasury got few responses. As an admirer of Distrikt, your opinion matters a lot to me.
Being a supporter of such a treasury, and this part of the message is not addressed to @AndraGeorgescu specifically, I would like to get a sense of why people are opposed to it, and the messages on the forum so far have not provided that.
One clear negative response is that the proposed treasury would strengthen the hands of prominent named neurons, whose controllers would be able to direct funds as they pleased, perhaps indirectly to themselves. This is a powerful argument, if there are others it would be good to have them discussed.
I agree that named neurons would be disproportionately powerful in guiding a treasury. But if their guidance felt corrupt, would this not be exposed and they would lose followers and their power? It would take time, but followers would gradually switch to other named neurons and we already have a great selection of those.
Secondly, the treasury itself could be withdrawn if enough people felt it was being misused or was not offering enough gains and it would be better just to burn the abandoned ICP. After all, nothing is permanent on the IC.


You and @AndraGeorgescu have asked umpteen million times on a wide variety of social media platforms what were intentions were behind details of the proposals and you have been given good faith explanations every time directly from the authors. Yet you refuse to listen and continue to pound on your own interpretation of intent. I feel like it has become impossible to have an intellectually honest conversation with either of you.

Hi Wenzel,

I would like to respectfully disagree. I have listened with a LOT of interest and attention. I have taken time and resources from distrikt to give to ICP governance in order to make sure I understand the situation to the best of my ability and the point of the matter is that all the questions I’ve asked Diego still stand. What answers I’ve received from the proposers have managed only to deepen the lack of trust and add to my worries about the future of ICP governance.

That being said I would like to reiterate that the questions I’ve raised in relation to this forum post are for @diegop. I wish to know the Dfinity foundation’s stance on this issue not Synapse’s stance(you’ve made your position clear and I thank you for that).

Also I believe that I am well within my rights to ask these questions of Dfinity.


Goodmorning Ser! Unfortunately, I’m caught up with IRL stuff atm, so I can’t answer as indepth as I’d like, but to name a few, but not all, of my main concerns;

  • a current problem has not been accurately defined, that constitutes the need for a treasury
    -developers have access to grants, VCs, and soon the community fund. for-profits / non-profits should be routed to the appropriate source of funding, rather than trying to utilize network influence to create new sources of funding
  • there is no decentralized, responsible mechanic to manage a treasury. majority of VP% is centralized among a few NN. there is no kyc, and no responsibility. how do we ensure transparency of funds, and that people are held accountable? it seems premature to me.
  • i personally have an issue with it, because from my perspective, there is no way it was not premeditated to create “excess funds” via “abandoned ICP”, to have this discussion about a treasury, and provide an easy “out” in regards to where funding comes from.
    But let’s not get too distracted with that last point.

A fair consolidation of both sides view and stances might perhaps be helpful to give an eagle eye view on where the contentions are


I agree Andra! I think you’ve been very restrained, respective, attentive and informed during these conversations!

Its a shame that people are resorting to attempting to discredit the opposing opinion by calling them “toxic” , “dishonest”, etc!


This is far too common in ICP across all spaces and it simply kills discussion of very valid and respectful points.

I’ve taken it on myself to point this out with proof in other media forms and I’m happy its being done here

All of us have a duty to ensure the voices are supported and not shut down when its public, respectful and detailed


Hi there @Harpal . Nuanced answer:

a. Yes it is possible for the blockchain to host dapps or DAOs, each of which with their own governance system.

b. There is only one NNS so the NNS can only have one governance system. The NNS, among other things, is the DAO that controls the burning and minting of ICP tokens.

I think they are very welcome


I think my point #2 was really not well written (only half a point tbh), it really makes sense in context with my point #4 and #5 which is basically:

Even if they did… why cant we (the community) just say “not good enough”, give some feedback, and move on to other proposals? Indeed that is exactly what happened. We at DFINITY thought spam proposal was concrete and helpful but did not think NNS treasury was.

My honest question @mechaquan is this:

Why do you think some in the community have met this issue with outrage? Why not say “no need”? Or maybe I am misreading things from the distance of written speech online? This is what has been most surprising to me and I am genuinely asking so I can understand. I think the outrage is valid, I just want to understand it. Is it because folks think that a half-baked idea would happen unless they were extremely vocal? Is it because they saw DFINITY vote for the conversation to continue? is it because folks think that a wild idea may be “slipped” past the community unless the alarm is rung?

You very much are @AndraGeorgescu . I have tried to answer them, please remind me if I have missed any. I did group a few which i thought had the same answer. I also did answer some indirectly via other answers I have shared with folks, so I didnt repeat myself (perhaps too lazy on my part).


I can’t speak for everyone but I can state for myself that the optics of it do not look good…we create “abandoned ICP” by effectively reducing rewards to voters and then in parallel suggest using these ICP to fund a treasury/projects/foundations. We are either reducing inflation or redirecting voters rewards.

I wanted to raise awareness to the possibility of misusing the NNS and ask the fundamental question about whether or not we believe the NNS should be used for this purpose…I’m fully aware that it could be used for this purpose…I just strongly disagree that it should be.


That makes sense @mechaquan .

Fwiw, i think it’s totally fair and valid you (or anyone) disagree with any use of the NNS. I think it’s valid you (or anyone) raise awareness of this issue. I

Why do you think the dialogue turned nasty and borderline ad hominem? We regularly see design issues we all agree or disagree with. Is it because folks find it was the best way to draw eye balls on the conversation? If you do not have a thesis thats fine, did not mean to put you on the spot.

1 Like

This is the point. Well explained

I don’t understand why they keep talking about the abandoned ICP, it was already seen that this idea was not applicable. There is no redirection of anything because those ICPs belong to each neuron and that’s it. Let’s think about other important issues that are in process, I think we have to stop talking about that because it’s not going to happen. A fund financed with donations or something else can be created, but nothing related to the proposal to reduce spam. Thanks a hug to all!


I’ll try to make one more attempt and bridging where possible outrage may be coming from and why it is completely unwarranted and generally hostile to us moving forward on the IC.

I think the disconnect comes from a differing set of presuppositions about how the NNS works and regulates itself. I come with drawings!

As we move from DFINITY controlling a topic(For our discussion we’ll look at 1. Node Rewards 2. Governance 3. Treasury Distribution(speculative), each topic will move from a position where DFINITY controls most of the Voting Power to a position where DFINITY holds a minority of the voting power. To make this work, in the second position, there has to be a mechanism in place to make sure that, in all instances, short-term value seekers(whether it be legitimate stakeholders looking to cash in, projects that would allocate resources for themselves at the expense of others, or adversarial agents looking to tear the network down) cannot gain control of the network.

How is this done? Skin in the game. We all lock our neurons so that we have to live with the consequences of our actions. This is the fulcrum that we move around and EVERYTHING in the NNS hinges on this holding true. If this does not hold true then we have no effective NNS. It is the reason that proposals to shorten staking time or lack of action on a neuron market are so dangerous to our long-term health.

The folks that are outraged need to understand that the people proposing an NNS treasury are operating in this world. The world looks like this:


NNS Treasury proposers are proposing a solution where, in their reality, it is impossible for them to make your worst fears come true because of the inherent configuration of the network. If the treasury existed, and if they tried to fund themselves, it could not pass unless 1. The network felt the funding benefited the long-term value of the network or 2. Significant Information Asymetrry was introduced to ‘trick’ the network into thinking that there was long-term value.

My suspicion is that some people are feeling a deep-felt information asymmetry. This makes sense to me as it is clearly the biggest threat to the network. If you feel that we’ve purposely created that asymmetry then I’m sure you are pissed and angry.

The way to eliminate your concerns in the future is to eliminate this information asymmetry. I think having a two-step proposal process would help this considerably. DFINITY laying out its positions as in this post is important as well.

The other solution is to make sure we violently reject any proposal where there exists a modicum of information asymmetry. @cryptoisgood is embodying this aggressively on twitter with his Known Neuron rejection if you haven’t posted to the forum. Is that gating? Maybe, but it is less dangerous than maintaining information asymmetry.

As far as the discussion of the NNS treasury goes, we had multiple posts on it here at the forum. There was one meeting held in person amongst a few people, but I can think of nothing discussed during that that wasn’t generally public in the forum. Fixing this asymmetry is a valid concern, but there is no reason to convert into malice and bad faith. The people who considered the idea to be a good one were living in a world where your worst fears were impossible. Please consider ascribing them some good faith. If they are wrong our experiment is already doomed.

Until we have better protection against the asymmetry, the only protection you have is paying attention to this forum and other places of discussion. This sucks because we’re all trying to build. I’m hoping some process is coming out of the working groups that will include proper documentation of discussions, objections, and mitigations.

If we live in a world where we solve information asymmetry then there should be no functional difference between our scenarios 1, 2, and 3. We shouldn’t be able to pass node rewards, governance proposals, or treasury distributions unless the network collectively agrees that it improves the long-term value of the network.

As far as folks that want an ethos or are concerned about long-term value that may overstep moral lines, we are going to have to human our way through that…there is no mechanism currently in place to keep it from happening. That is scary as hell, but where we are. This is also worth a deep discussion and consideration.


I’m glad you said this Diego! I have a couple questions that I feel were accidentally sidestepped with context, that could be built upon after the discussion we’ve had.

  1. What is DFINITYs stance on a proposal manufacturing a circumstance to be “opportunized upon” by a secondary proposal down the line.

(Don’t wanna re-ask this, but rather build off it, so I’ll provide context :slight_smile: )

  1. What is DFINITYs stance on multiple “agendas” being pushed within the same proposal? (ex, Spam proposal, but it doesn’t completely address spam - it reduces inflation & creates abandoned icp)

Response: …if the spam proposal ALSO helped the IC become more environmentally friendly, that would be nice but it was only judged by DFINITY on its intended goal… and the cost of implementing it. If implementing it, would make the IC slower for example, DFINITY likely would not have accepted. If the author had an agenda to reduce inflation, so they used a proposal that reduced spam to get it…

So does this imply that DFINITY only has issues with agendas being pushed via the NNS if they affect network performance? It seems to also imply that the cause & affect of the proposal is not considered either. Is this a safe voting practice when DFINITY is in control of such a large VP%?

Diego the problem has been going on for quite some time. First, the hyperinflation that has driven the price of ICP to the ground, to combat inflation, the change of totonomics is introduced through the modulation factor and the anti-spam proposal with the aim of reducing inflation and discouraging spam proposals. 5 min later, the same ones that have pushed these changes propose to direct the supposed abandoned ICPs from the rewards of neurons that have never voted to create a treasure that apparently is decisive for the survival of IC , all under the protection of Dfinity, and Dfinity without saying a word. The community is not stupid, it is IC’s best asset. The community wonders what the hell is going on? What are we missing that we don’t know? are we so screwed? oops!! I forgot, and while all this is happening, the only thing that occurs to a representative of Dfinity, (@Herbert) to give voice to a supposed member of the community on Twitter to debate whether it would be a good idea for seed investors to sell all its exchanges at once, canceling the unlocking schedule, arguing that this way new investors would be more attracted to buy ICP. after a drop since its launch of about 99%. Honestly, the community is very burned and angry with the feeling of lack of control and lack of clarity, communication and leadership that it is seeing from Dfinity. Giving the feeling (which I’m not saying is true) that a ship adrift, save yourself.


I think you are asking me to give a thesis on human behavior :slight_smile: maybe we can have a nice thread on Taggr about this I know @radudaniel would love that! :slight_smile:

What I do know is there are always some characters who will use bombastic and sensational language to get attention and make a point…and for lack of a better explanation it works.

I simply asked a direct question of several individuals who expressed to me publicly or privately what their beliefs are. There is no point in talking around the issue…if people believe the NNS should be funding projects directly we should make those beliefs transparent and known.

I think I’ve been pretty consistent on what I believe the role of the NNS is…which is to remain completely agnostic and manage the protocol which includes not requiring a NNS vote for naming a neuron or launching a SNS.

Years from now once adequately decentralised we can have real debates about tokenomics such as should we increase/decrease inflation, node provider subsidies, dev cycle costs for computation and storage, transaction costs, etc.