Will Dfinity be publishing their principals?
3 Likes
Messing with Tokenomics as it has been done MANY times is an experimentation using NNS Government Structure
Creating an NNS Treasury is messing with NNS government structure
Minting more ICP to fund other activities is messing with NNS government structure
This should have been raised through all of these actual impacting issues that lead to this point.
3 Likes
We have shared a forum post on DFINITY voting guidelines here, which I also referenced in the original post.
And as mentioned above, these guidelines definitely leave room for interpretation (which is to certain extent is also desirable). Quite often, governance proposals come with good arguments in favour & against, and the final decision can be a close call.
3 Likes
Ok so this existed BEFORE the treasury proposal
Which was voted YES by Dfinity AFTER being clearly controversial
And we are to feel everything is fair, above board and investments in ICP are safe
Builders right now, after reading this forum post are to feel confident in NNS and how Dfinity conducts themselves
This post should give Builders and Investors assurance that there is no room for big powers to drastically rug the floor underneath them?
The whole point of all this was to stop whats happening right now - I’m hugely disappointed and don’t have confidence in Dfinity as an Entity
Hell I dont even see any efforts from dfinity to reassure everyone of measures taken to offer some certainty
Next steps are tangible ones which I’m assuming will be shut down by Dfinity and their Synapse pals but It’ll be a last ditch effort before I call it a day here
2 Likes
Finally, please don’t even bother to explain “There’s no favouritism or agenda”
The actions are all I’m looking at, the words have been all too misleading for long enough
As of now I see Dfinity as a biased org - and will stay as such till actions show otherwise
2 Likes
I think this is fair feedback and I agree we should strive for more consistency. This should be a natural part of DFINITY (and also other neurons) gaining experience over time with the deliberation & voting process (after all, we are interacting on quite new territory here). I am definitely supportive of that and will make an effort to contribute in that direction.
1 Like
Please see here, for feedback on a similar point raised earlier in the thread.
While not necessarily advancing the discussion, I really had to laugh about this comment 
3 Likes
I agree with DFinity. The Yes and No buttons exist for people or entities to vote as they wish. We should not institute group thinking and peer pressure into how neurons vote. The principles are made to appear like harmless guidelines, but I am sure they will be waved in the face of DFinity at every turn. Let each neuron define their own principles, then we either trust them individually or not. DFinity is an independent contributor free to act as it wills.
8 Likes
All this was addressed and discussed during the first Twitter space, there’s no point wasting even more time on this now that it’s dead. You can watch the recording if you want.
However, I appreciate your well thought out arguments. At least you’re making them and arguing valid concerns and points. You’re furthering the discussion.
At least you thoughtfully voted to reject, I can respect that.
Silently nodding along for 2 months and then voting no and giving a weak excuse, that’s disappointing.
In any case, I’m ready to move forward. Let’s make sure we get all Known Neurons to list their principles on at least a few of the most important topics, like censorship and tokenomic changes. That’ll at least be a start!
6 Likes
For those interested, I’ve kick started a thread on where this goes next:
Thankyou @mechaquan for putting the Base proposal and Taggr together
3 Likes
I totally agree and respect their right to vote as they wish. I just don’t believe the reasoning offered and would appreciate more honesty and transparency. And the reason why I don’t believe it is because there are multiple paths to code changes and I even offered an example. But to each their own I guess.
I have no issue with the vote itself but the decision-making process they claim to have doesn’t seem to be what is being practiced in reality and that makes me uneasy. I would rather just be offered no reasoning at all at this point.
Also when Dfinity votes, the voting is basically over and they determine the end result. So we do pay a lot more attention and they are scrutinised more thoroughly than a less influential neuron. That is normal and healthy for the governance process because one entity sways a lot of influence over a network that we are all invested in and building on.
4 Likes
Agreed. Perhaps someone could submit another proposal to require known neurons to continually disclose their principles in a public and easily accessible location, and that those principles must cover certain topics (and specific subtopics). Then it should be easy for the IC dashboard to link from known neuron IDs to that public disclosure location, just like it does now to the known neuron’s name change proposal. Although a name change proposal often includes such principles, these principles are not in any required topical format. Nor are they updatable or easily accessed across all known neurons.
Another idea would be to create a simple summary of all known neuron positions on the required principle topics (e.g., 80% of voting power from known neurons supports principle X, 20% supports principle Y, etc.). This should be relatively easy given the small number of known neurons, especially if they are all publishing their principles in an easy to access location and all cover (at a minimum) certain required topics.
I think most IC community members (including myself) would strongly support the principles that you proposed to guide their personal choices. So if we can find a way to collate and summarize the views of known neurons in a single location, then that could effectively accomplish the same objective, don’t you think? In fact, doing it this way instead could be perceived as much more authentic, voluntary and less perfunctory than a general set of principles that a slim majority of members might have approved a few years ago.
Keep in mind, some known neurons may just have the principle of purely selfish maximization of personal profit, community be damned. That personal position should be perfectly fine if they are not breaking any laws. However, I would much rather know that those known neurons exist out in the open rather than having them buried in the 49% that did not vote for the original lofty principles a few years ago.
2 Likes
I much prefer Known Neurons having a principle they follow then the whole of NNS. One central ‘constitution’ would be way too sluggish, while several smaller and competing ‘constitutions’ allow for a dynamic play-field of ideas.
3 Likes
I want to highlight this point from @bjoernek which may have been buried among the comments.
It would be fair to say that we learned from the “NNS temperature” vote so now we have a higher bar for “code to path.” In retrospectives, many of us think we should have had a higher bar for that vote.
We have raised the bar after that. So this is an iteration and learning. Similarly one of the lessons we learned from that is to publish our thinking openly BEFORE voting (not days later).
To call it this NO vote a “contradiction” because of the precedents of previous DFINITY votes i think is reasonable, but missing-the-point since it ignores that DFINITY is learning as an organization about how to analyze proposals and how it votes (I am sure other neurons similarly learn as patterns emerge).
12 Likes
I don’t know what this even means
I don’t think we can do this since it’ll get rejected due to “no path to code”
This sounds like a lot of work and if I’m gonna have to provide updates all the time I’m gonna ask to be an unnamed neuron
I think motion proposals cause problems and should be removed.
2 Likes
No doubt. I just think DFINITY is painting themselves into a corner much like they did when they said that they view adopted community proposals as clear directive to work on a task.
I suspect that future motion proposals will be contentious due to subjective views about whether there’s a clear path to code changes. I would appreciate if you or @bjoernek can explain what the minimum criteria is. For example:
- Do we need to provide actual code examples?
- Do we need to provide a preliminary architecture?
- Do we just need to state “This proposal could lead to code changes”
Several people have made arguments that this proposal could have led to code changes driven by follow-on proposals. Does DFINITY not agree?
I have zero issue with DFINITY voting to reject this proposal. I’m just confused by the reasoning and what that means for future proposals.
2 Likes