I apologize that you interpreted my comments as attacking. That was not the intent. I’m really asking genuine questions because I want to know your thoughts. I have apologized every time someone has called me out because it is counter productive to intellectually honest conversation and I’m happy to admit when I’m wrong. I’d like to move on and get back to productive discussion.
I agree that we control the NNS through neuron voting and I agree that 2 named neurons trigger 66% of total voting power that is cast on Governance Motion proposals. However, Governance Motion proposals do not control code. They are opinion polls that have huge psychological impact, but zero control over the internet computer. There is no proposal topic that exists today to control a treasury through the NNS. Hence, it would have to be created and would not fall under Governance. In fact, if it were placed under All Topics, then DFINITY would have 100% control due to default following. That is also not likely to happen because the point is decentralization. Hence, the mechanics of how a treasury would be controlled by the NNS would definitely need to be worked out and have not been defined in any way so far. It most certainly will not be controlled by 2 named neurons.
This is very true, but not only do they have a large psychological impact - more often than not, governance proposals are asking for permission / proposing to implement code. Which is then acted upon. However, upon review of the NNS Followee system - I agree with you. I see there are a few topics other than “Governance” under the “All Except….” category, and I assume the NNS Treasury, if ever implemented, would be one of them, similar to the SNS & CF. Meaning current Followees would not apply to the topic - forcing a reset of followee regardless.
I think this is correct. This is why I think it is incorrect to say that a few neurons would control decisions on a treasury. IF (a big if) a treasury were ever built into the NNS, it would be intentionally designed for much more decentralized decision making. I don’t think it would look anything like governance motion proposals.
This is how I used to think it was supposed to work, but it hasn’t worked this way. It is a core reason why I have concluded that a treasury is needed. I want to attract people and organizations that can become contributors to the IC. There is not a single community lead governance motion proposal that has ever been implemented after it passed an NNS vote. So far the only governance motion proposals that have been implemented are proposals created by DFINITY.
This forum topic is the first time I have seen anyone at DFINITY say that they are going to prioritize past proposals that were community lead. Two of them were referenced in the conversation. I’m looking forward to learning more about what will happen with both…
@diegop and @wpb , your fruitful exchange has exposed a great anecdotal example of 1) how approval (at the NNS level) and prioritization (done only at the DFinity level) are two very different things, and 2) which role ultimately rules as the overriding power. Again, I’m not criticizing DFinity here, since I don’t think any bad intentions were involved. It is just a reflection of the universal reality that control over resource allocations / priorities is the essence of what power is, and what gets done when.
Incorporating collective prioritizations into the strategic decision-making process of a large organization is far more difficult than most people imagine it should be. It requires a fundamental surrender of real power to a collective entity, with terrifying uncertainty about what will happen next. Only when we can collectively see and realize how difficult it is can we rise to the challenge of addressing it as a universal human problem. Unfortunately, this realization also tends to require a challenge to our most cherished illusions about political “Democracy” and “Freedom” (the capitalized ideology versions), which most of us have been inculcated since childhood to hold so dear.
Even more daunting, I know of no large organization that has ever truly succeeded in this challenge. Nevertheless, that will not stop me from dedicating the next few years of my life to a PhD to give it my best shot. My hope is that others in the Internet Computer ecosystem will want to help, in at least a minor way, to give it a shot as well. Never forget that, just a few years ago, no one had ever succeeded in building the dream of a “World Computer”, which was mocked as an unreachable fantasy. Yet here we are, talking about how to take that “fantasy” to the next level in our reality.
@tsetse, cooperatives like Migros are a great first step in allowing workers and customers to be owners of a business. However, even in these situations, a trusted leader (i.e., benevolent dictator) is still relied upon to make the key prioritization decisions. There is nothing in this link that demonstrates any collective prioritization process exists.
Nonprofits and unions are the same, all relying on a trusted surrender of power to a benevolent dictator, which therefore remains as a single point of failure for potential corruption. Even if goal congruence is assumed between the cooperative owners and the trusted dictator (which further assumes that the dictator can somehow know what the owners’ varied priorities are as a collective entity), this obviously introduces a single point of coercive control by a government or other centralized power. That would obviously be disastrous in the long run for the Internet Computer in an age of escalating censorship pressure and privacy invasion.
Incidentally, this single point of failure logic is the same reason why the U.S. has actively supported so many dictatorships and ironically overthrown so many governments that have popular or democratic support when they refuse to obey U.S. resource allocation directives: one grifting dictator is very easy to control and manipulate, but the collective will of an entire country is not. Likewise, anyone who still believes that wars are altruistically initiated for the "Freedom & Democracy"® of poor and oppressed foreigners instead of selfish control over resources is not really living in the real world.
If one defines collective prioritisation as every member having an equal input in decisions, and anything short of that meaning a benevolent dictatorship and a single point of failure, I think this is a false dichotomy and not just an unrealistic goal as has been stated, but also an undesirable one. As far as Migros goes, the collective engages in important decisions, but leaves the day to day running to executives all of whom, unlike dictators, are easily replaceable.
As for wars, I do not think they are altruistically initiated, but also do not think they are all about resource control, another false dichotomy.
Anyway, the Migros example was not about a perfect co-operative, because perfection does not exist, more about what has been achieved in the brick and mortar world without some of the benefits of technology we now possess. Hopefully, we can eventually do even better.
terkedilmiş, sahipsiz icp lerin yakılması herkesin menfaatinedir. yakım, icp nin kurtuluşudur. sosyal medyada, icp grafiği yayınlanarak icp ile alay ediliyor. bu grafiğin tersine dönmesinin en iyi yolu yakım mekaniznası ile emisyonun azaltılmasıdır.
terkedilmiş, sahipsiz icp lerin yakılması herkesin menfaatinedir. yakım, icp nin kurtuluşudur. sosyal medyada, icp grafiği yayınlanarak icp ile alay ediliyor. bu grafiğin tersine dönmesinin en iyi yolu yakım mekaniznası ile emisyonun azaltılmasıdır.
No, @tsetse, equal input in all decisions is not my definition of collective prioritization. That would be a strawman fallacy. If you think Migros is using a collective prioritization process, then please demonstrate which voting method/algorithm it is using to aggregate the individual priorities of its members (or any subset of its members >1 dictatator) when >2 alternatives exist.
Quick question: do you acknowledge that today we don’t actually have a spam problem that needs solving?
After resetting the weighting it disappeared.
Also, within the spam proposal it’s now proposed to return the weighting to 20 which as far as I can tell will only maximize the amount abandoned or undistributed ICP.
I’m really curious what’s the point of all this if not to create a big pile of ICP to use for a treasury?
You still haven’t read the deliberation on proposal 80790 yet have you? It’s full of explanation why the spam problem still existed and why DFINITY asked @skilesare to revitalize the proposal. It was even a significant point of discussion on the Twitter Spaces held by @icpjesse that so many people attended.
When the weights went back to one there was still a small incentive to spam because there are a lot of exchange rate proposals and those have a .01(x144 per day…so you start with a total weight of 1.4 for all DFINITY followers on Exchange Rate) weight. So there was still an imbalance with the weights at 1 for all others. If one had issued a bunch of spams every day you could have eventually gotten to where there would have been an advantage.
The problem was about to get worse though because the exchange rate proposals are going away. So all of that weighting that was counterbalancing spams is going to go away. There was especially going to be a problem on weekends when there were going to be none of the standard subnet and upgrade proposals that usually balance out the weightings.
Think of the marketing.