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

Pardon me, not sure I follow: What do you mean by the “spam proposal problem”?

  1. Spam has been a problem for many months because there is economic incentive to create nonsense proposals for rewards. This is independent of any entity or party.

  2. Many, many people have proposed spam solutions. We have tried a few. This is just the latest.

  3. I don’t see a problem with anyone proposing any solution. Indeed, I welcome the wildest ideas, and try to evaluate them as they are. I argue (speaking for myself, not as Dfinity): ideas should be respected when posted, Questioned, scrutinized, and decided upon.

What am I missing? It seems I am missing something in your intent, but I’m not sure.

Are you saying that the recent spam proposal created a problem? Which problem was that? All it did was:

A. Reduce económic incentive for spam by reduce rewards for non-voters
B. Potentially Reduce rewards crested daily

What do you mean? When did we obscure our intent in the written updates? If you give an example, I can rewrite it if it was vaguely written

I don’t believe I have done this. I believe I only mentioned bese market once, but really made a point to recognize that previous events eroded some people’s safety so it was reasonable they get more vocal for this proposal than if it was submitted 12 months ago.

If you disagree, please point to the sections where you think I did and I can rewrite it, as that was not my intent.

What proposal are you referring to?

With one proposal (spam), a community member created it. We gave feedback on forums and then supported it.

With the other (“temperature check”), we communicated we have not seen an interesting version we think Can help the IC, but welcome more discussion.

Honest question: Where did dismiss folks? We are far from perfect, so if we were dismissive we need to learn.

Well this is odd. There are multiple versions of the NNS treasury idea, almost all of them as works in progress and all of them iterate even within their own forum threads. There are also forum threads on Ethos on NNS.

I think I have been clear on dfinity’s stand: we haven’t seen anything that can help the IC.

Each idea has its own pros and cons, and if you are looking for detailed feedback on each comment or idea, we first need canonical versions of ideas to comment on.

Does that not sound like a reasonable stance?

I am referring to this

I don’t think this is reasonable, I think the “Why” has been articulated clearly by people

The community that lives and feels IC and ICP in its heart, the community that fell in love with Dfinity’s vision is the one that has the best perception of the general climate in social networks because it lives in them. Diego you have to have people who could even be members of the community who observe what happens in the networks and know how to transmit to Dfinity the general climax especially in a bear market. I honestly believe in your honesty and that of Dfinity but I think your hands are tied because you are busy with other tasks related to development and you do a lot of showing up to the community. but you should have honest observers dedicated exclusively to that. To anticipate and know how to stop speculation and misunderstandings in time. Thank you for your comments

Boiling it down to this when multiple factors of concerns has been raised is dismissive

“Oh its just bear market and other stuff” - is dismissive

I dont disagree with this. Indeed, these ideas are usually much more baked for starters. They have also had motion proposals that have passed.

It sounds like you think Dfinity is pushing an NNS treasury to create decentralization? Did I get your intent right? I don’t think it is. Dfinity thought the opposite: it was not a tangible or helpful version we think can be helpful, specially given other opportunities and priorities.

Hi @Accumulating.icp :wave:

Thank you for raising these points.

I tried to provide my perspective on this here:

In summary, some people’s experience has been that the existing options aren’t enough and that there’s a gap for things the community might otherwise like to see funded.

From what I’ve seen, the biggest proponents of furthering a treasury discussion have also been the ones acknowledging these issues the most.

I’m not sure I’d say “premature” but I understand the sentiment.

I’ve also seen how specific use cases without clear solutions can drive innovation in areas that improve things overall, so I think it would be a shame to dismiss ideas and not explore them because of that.


If I’m understanding this correctly

Dfinity wants to make this treasury idea work but is only deliberating on how?

I am hugely active within the community and speak to a lot of people. Not a single one is able to tell me Dfinity’s stance on this so maybe there is a larger problem here than just my understanding

1 Like

With all due respect, maybe the context got lost.

The question was “why the outrage?” It was not “why do people disagree with ideas.” I can see why people can disagree with an idea. I asked why the ad hominem attacks on social media and vocal anger. It was a question about the tone.

I conceded that this micro case is not in a vacuum. It is amidst a bear market as well as a line of previous micro cases which upset folks so the tone rose with the history and environment. I think that is fair, no?


Dfinity has no plans for an NNS treasury. I see people say this on social media. This is false.

Dfinity only read and made some small comments to OTHER people’s ideas of what an NNS treasury could look like in a respectful way as we do with other ideas.

Does that clear up the misunderstanding?

I can see why you would be upset if you thought that. I appreciate you asking directly with your base assumption so I can address it directly.


Yeah I think thats fair


Thank you for this @theguy . It speaks volumes of your intellectual honesty.

I also appreciate your earlier comments as well so we can discuss openly.


For the community members who feel this way, have these community members attempted to raise funds using any other methods and failed? IMO there are numerous funding paths besides VC’s and NNS Treasury that could be used to raise funds for the types of non profit projects and initiatives contemplated.

Look at other blockchains as examples,

  • Ethereum has raised hundreds of millions through Gitcoin grants for community goods type of projects that are not for profit.
  • Crowdfunding platforms NFT crowdfund which recently raised a record amount in it’s latest crowdfund.
  • Alternatively SNS could be used for funding these types of initiatives.

All these alternatives voluntary contribution funding routes would not carry the same type of risk that are associated with the creation of NNS treasury.

If these proposed projects were proposed to the IC Community through various independent voluntary funding requests, I would anticipate that funds would be raised successfully to support these efforts.

Perhaps the default approach should be to try these low risk funding routes to see if they are viable options, prior to embarking on the high risk endeavor of NNS treasury and only if they fail and prove to be untenable, then seeking other alternatives.


I don’t know the details of them all but from conversations I’ve been involved in or heard of, the gist of it is:

  • Something native to the IC would be the most aligned with improving the ecosystem.
  • The amount of ICP raised across all projects on CrowdfundNFT is fairly low; certainly not enough to attract talent to commit to working on the IC full-time.
  • The SNS seems geared towards decentralization sales where those participating expect some sort of return. This isn’t a good fit for a number of things like code reviews, audits, marketing efforts, etc.

I’m not being dismissive of your opinions, I’m trying to relate to them and see things from your side. The information asymmetry bleeds into the Named Neuron system as you mention and it is a problem to solve as well. You have a good point.

The people that do have skin in the game have selected those neurons. With a small 4-day voting period and the ease with which one can decide to stop paying attention, it is a risk that those with skin in the game could be creating an asymmetry for themselves. The skin is in the game, but perhaps the head isn’t. I don’t have a great immediate solution for this other than to say that by properly diversifying one’s following they can protect themselves somewhat. Synapse is actually 11 people voting. ICDevs is 6. By following those two you’d be following 17 community leaders and that would certainly provide you with reduced risk than just following just two. 170 would be even better! 1700 is likely overkill but certainly difficult to bamboozle. How we get from here to there is important. In the meantime DFINITY has a good bit of pull to overwhelm almost any proposal that gets too far out of line. It is a lot of trust in DFINITY, but that is implicit already to what we are doing for the time being. We have to make sure we get to proper diversification by the time DFINITY loses that position.

1 Like

Is your accusation that the ICPMaximalist neuron PURPOSELY created the spam problem?

These leads me into a question regarding DFINITYs grant system, as it’s being portrayed asthough there’s a lack of funding.

If everyone is so confident the projects in question should be funded , as they benefit the ecosystem, why hasn’t DFINITY allocated more grant funding to opensource libraries, bug bounties, etc? They claim to have 200m$ reserved for funding grants. Surely it’s a good idea to use that fund, to incentivize community growth, through the funding of non-profits, rather than for-profits?

The question really is, how much of that 200m$ is left? Grants are paid in the form of ICP - is that 200m$ ICP at Genesis, or 200m$ in fiat?