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

This is literally the same thing I said but presented somehow as opposed so I am a bit confused at this point. Wenzel we might actually be agreeing with each other for once :joy:


Fwiw, maybe a more interesting question is what we learned about this, and as I wrote above, I think DFINITY learned a lot about how to scrutinize “temperature check” proposals or “should this conversation continue?” or how we communicate it before and after.

We do not think we did great here. It would be disingenuous to say, “Here is what we did and why it was right.”

More honest version is “here is what we did, why we did it, and why we think it was not great.”

1 Like

I feel apprehensive about even posting this because it seems like this thread has gotten quite heated. I’m still not sure I understand everyone’s perspectives but hopefully that’s OK.

I’m posting this anyway because I want to encourage others to ask “stupid” questions and feel like there’s an environment where it’s safe to do that. I hope this is received in the manner it is intended.

I’ve spent some time trying to understand what people mean by “abandoned ICP”, tracking it, and all of the concerns around it.

I think what people may actually mean by this loaded and unfortunate term is “the difference in the amount of ICP that would have otherwise been minted” and that’s what’s of most interest.

Or rather, what the actual inflation value is vs. the inflation schedule that was originally proposed.

From what I’ve gathered, some of the proposed ideas (like @lastmjsfunded contributors seem quite logical;

ICP is minted for activity that the NNS deems is valuable. At the moment that is limited to being a node provider and voting.

If at some point the NNS decided that minting more ICP for some other activity was valuable then maybe that could happen.


  1. Do people object to that in principle? (introducing new activity and minting more ICP, details obviously important)

    If not, or to at least keep that option open, capping the above to the originally planned inflation schedule seems important.

  2. In which case, is keeping track of the ICP that was planned to be minted as it happens the only way to ensure that?

    Can we figure it out retroactively if necessary? Are people also opposed to that?

Thanks :bowing_man:


Hi Paul,

I’ve said repeatedly that I am not at all opposed to the idea of a treasury as long as participation is a voluntary contribution. I have said that I would contribute.That I would be open to donate a % of my rewards to fund important work and would happily encourage others to do the same. But not like this.

I’m sorry, I don’t want to be rude but I won’t make another argument about why I find the concept of “abandoned ICP” so problematic….I am honestly exhausted. And I have absolutely nothing to gain from all this, only to lose by antagonising important members in our community. Nevertheless, I believe that opposing this initiative is in the best interest of the IC.

I’ve made my points to the best of my ability.


Thanks Andra. This wasn’t directed at you specifically but more of a general question. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

This has all been quite distracting and I feel exhausted as well. Sorry for adding to it!


I would like to remind people to engage in civil discussion. I know Donald Trump was president for a while and that approach seems to get attention on Twitter but I believe we are better than that.

I would also like to remind people that smart people disagree. Smart people with the exact same facts disagree.

Lets encourage disagreement. Lets encourage debate. Lets discourage ad hominem attacks. Lets discourage online bullying and name calling.

Just a reminder we are all on the same team.


I can think of something better. I want to make it clear that I would not touch the current system of governance.

In the interests of not increasing inflation with the NNS minting rewards from neurons that have not voted, 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 ?

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 of 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. 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.

1 Like

What’s the point of this comment? No one is attacking anyone.

I’m sure Andra has better things to do that respond to this…

Also, if you aren’t going to respond to why you think you have the right to extract millions of dollars a month in value from the NNS then I’d probably just not say anything…


Because the easiest way to answer a question, is to talk around it. We’ve raised valid concerns, and had our questions ignored & sidestepped. All while being called names like toxic, ingenuine, dishonest, etc. - only to have the script flipped - framing the scenario like we’re the ones attacking people.

Quite ironic that we get directed to the forums for “long form conversation”, only to deal with this.


The IC governance status quo seems to have had little to no opposition for so long that now they are shocked and insulted that people even question them in a direct and straightforward manner.

Losing trust in someone or in their organization is not malicious. It’s not malice or bad faith to believe its intentions may have been corrupted by the promise of the extreme wealth that they can siphon out of the network. Perhaps a better question is: why are these people losing trust in your representation of their interests?

Are people reacting to this proposal the ones making this “an awful place to contribute” or was this achieved by the proposal itself combined with the forum post detailing plans made months ago?

Funny that you should mention how people are getting discouraged. I’ve spent the last 2 weeks doing ground work within the community and trying to talk important community members out of rage quitting over this. If I sometimes seem upset about this whole mess, it is because I actually took the time to listen to them and their concerns.

I’ve spent countless hours offering reassurance that this is not as bad as it seems and we can move on from this. I am not the enemy here, you’ve done this damage yourselves and are unable to admit it or make amends. And to be frank I’m tired of cleaning up the mess this proposal made, at absolutely no personal benefit whatsoever(quite the contrary).


The only “Toxicity” I saw was the emotional outburst that was condemned

Once again I’m asking people not to shut down discussion by driving it to dismissal by claims of aggression

If there are claims - I please use quotes on whats considered “Unacceptable” language else it’s going to be considered attempts to misdirect henceforth

Think were all adults here and we can do better than this

This whole discussion really points at the problems NNS brings at its current uncontrolled state


No one - not me, not Synapse, not you, not anyone - has the right to do anything. We have governance structures that approve or deny proposals. And it’s up to the people that make those proposals to make convincing arguments. If they aren’t convincing they won’t succeed. And if the governance structures are broken, it’s up to people to make proposals and arguments to fix them.

The point of the comment is that I don’t like how people are treating one another in these forums. Especially people who have devoted significant amounts of their time to make the IC a better place. It wasn’t directed at Andra specifically. It’s a general comment.


You would want to hope someone has invested a significant amount of time for 6 mil a month


This is a sensational claim and factually incorrect. I have explained provided direct answer on numerous occasions (Discord, Taggr, Twitter, forum) and yet you continue to make this claim.

For example…

It is a disingenuous engagement in deliberation when you are unwilling to recognize an opposing point of view and accept their explanations. I am
left with the feeling that your only intent is to discredit people who support further discussions on the treasury idea.

1 Like

I agree…I don’t like how people who are questioning motives and intent are being called toxic or being accused of ad hominem attacks. If you believe this is happening please provide specific examples.

A good part of the community strongly disagrees with your proposal regarding 1) the creation of a treasury and 2) how to fund it.

The below is straight from your proposal…

There are three options to fund such a treasury:

1. Increase inflation of all neurons
2. Reduce staking rewards from all neurons while keeping inflation constant
3. Reduce the staking rewards from only non-voting neurons (or another group of neurons)

Me challenging you on these ideas is not toxic or launching ad hominem…however you accusing me of that is avoiding a debate on your ideas.

Let me cover each option:

  1. Increase inflation of all neurons aka printing money; this is a bad idea because you are effectively devaluing every staked neurons value via inflation and extracting that value from the NNS to fund projects/foundations/marketing that not all stakers would likely agree on.
  2. Reduce staking rewards from all neurons while keeping inflation constant; this is changing the terms to which people staked for 8 years on and involuntarily taking their rewards
  3. Reduce the staking rewards from only non-voting neurons ; this is just not true because non-voting neurons do not get rewards @wpb has mentioned this several times…only voters get rewards

So if you want to continue to debate the ideas I’m happy to do so but let’s focus on the arguments.


I understand your point and in part you may be right but nevertheless I honestly think this is getting too sidetracked.

it is true that a treasury right now would not be a good idea given the centralization and lack of trust that still exists. perhaps Synapse’s mistake has been to be too pretentious.

But I think that Synapse has been a great contributor and important initiator in the IC since everything here is very new, and I really think that they want the best for the ecosystem.
They did not calculate the suspicions that this could arouse.
I also think that Dfinity wanted to stay out of it, which is why I voted yes on the temperature proposal.
I think that in a DAO everything has to be open to debate and discussion since everything evolves, even the most common needs. for future proposals I think it is very essential that there be three options, YES, NO and Whatever the Majority decides


I agree that you @mechaquan @AndraGeorgescu and @theguy have all raised valid concerns in the Discord VIP as well as here in the forum. I have responded directly when clarification was requested. It’s not clear to me why you would say your concerns are being ignored and sidestepped.

If I have contributed to the name calling, then I apologize. I will gladly delete because I agree that it does not add anything productive to the debate. Please advise where I need to edit and I will do it.

1 Like

I think this is the type of message that is not sitting well. It is a sensational sound bite that is factually incorrect and keeps getting used over and over. Can we please move on from this line of accusation?

1 Like

Wenzel, how is quoting your co-authored proposal sensationalism?!

You proposed: 1) increasing inflation at the cost of stakers value, 2) reducing stakers/voters rewards at the cost of stakers/voters, and 3) reducing non-voters rewards which you know is not true.

I don’t think the problem is me recognising an opposing point…I think I’m very much recognising your point… and I strongly disagree with it and I think you don’t like that so instead of making your point better you call me sensational or disingenuous.


I disagree because when the people doing the proposing are the people doing the voting and the same people that would benefit from receiving the “abandoned ICP”….is it really a stretch to consider that the temptation of all that money and self-interest might have a role to play in this initiative?

So while we can never know true intent(so we can’t claim facts), you can’t blame people for being suspicious. The optics are not good.