Only certain members of the forums who have reached a particular activity “status” can flag or unflag posts. Maybe it’s a good idea for that threshold to be higher on the forums, or to be able to contest a flag. @diegop
@jorgenbuilder So this is how flagging works on discourse. Understanding Discourse Trust Levels
So L1, L2, and L3 can all flag posts (each level can flag more posts per day), and L3 flags can instantly hide the posts of L0s.
This is what happens when you flag a post.
I’ve only had one of my posts flagged in the history of this forum, for which I received this notification. It was later “un-hidden” (not sure if mods unflagged it or what happened exactly).
1 Like
Again I see the typical extreme attacks being made in relation to token price and those who just invested for financial gain, with misinformation, expletive remarks that they feel give stronger meaning to their case.
We have seen those who have a good understanding of the economics of the token give valid reasoning and come to the conclusion that the inflation and price are relatively right and not much improvement can be accomplished.
The suggestion that the inflation of the token should be manipulated for financial gain is nothing more than panic or greed and a lack of understanding of this project and the possibilities for the future.
I support DFINITY decision not to vote on supporting extreme views in my opinion was the right decision to make.
I see the need for an Ethos but with different warring groups it is too early to make a declaration of behavior within the NNS at this time as the war has just started and cannot be determined till after the war.
I feel that those who are investing in neurons just for rewards and being locked in should be able to remove themself from this project and I support a Marketplace to put up their neurons for sale for those of us that want to invest further.
Allowing those who have inappropriate comments to make should be allowed to vent their opinion as in the long run, are seen for what they are and will lose support on their own but at the same time give a full view of what to or not to do.
2 Likes
Interesting idea. Tbh, I’ve felt it’s too high actually (I’d like to have more community-led moderation)… but you make a good argument. Let me brew on it.
I totally understand the emotional response, but this point does not seem true. If you remove all public known neurons from the vote tally, the result is 1.4% Yes and 12.8% No. If you add your Arthur’s neuron (5.6%TVP) and Synapse (5.1%TVP), the vote tally is still only 12.1% Yes and 12.8% No, not including DFINITY, ICA, or ICDevs. I just don’t see any way that you can slice the data and make a valid argument that Dom killed this proposal.
I think a lot of people agree with this point (including DFINITY), but there has yet to be a viable path identified that moves other people and organizations in this direction. There is no incentive. I’m still listening for ideas, but nothing has surfaced.
Perhaps this attitude is why the proposal failed…you want to control people’s beliefs about what is in the best interest in the IC. It’s hard enough to coordinate a proposal that seeks alignment of principles of a lot of people, but near impossible in an ecosystem that values decentralization and independent thinking when advocates for the proposal are vocalizing a willful intent to control other people.
This comment resonates with me. I don’t want to be expected to adhere to anyone else’s guidelines. I will vote with my own convictions and expect people around me to vote with their own convictions. I believe this is necessary to achieve decentralization and it will be a slow journey to get where everyone thinks governance is fully decentralized. The best place to define principles is at the neuron level, not the NNS level.
I think there is a lot of truth in this statement and is likely a major reason why it did not pass. To be honest, you could replace DFINITY with any named neuron and the logic would still apply.
I hope to accomplish this with crowdgov.org after we finish the MVP. It will be on a volunteer basis and something that can be edited by the admin for each respective registered neuron. I think the community should come together to scope the feature.
5 Likes
When you delete a comment you only have 24hrs to undo it before it’s automatically removed.
1 Like
To be clear, I deleted the comment. I don’t think the flag is censorship, although that was my initial interpretation. I’ll put a considered post up in another thread explaining the situation.
Cedric convinced me not to publish the legal letter as at the end of the day, we need cohesion and negativity gets us nowhere. Especially in the winter. These are discussions to have in fairer weather when morale is stronger. This is not the best application of time and mental resources at the current time.
7 Likes
These discussions needs to be had asap if there actually is an underlying issue, sweeping it under the rug might be more counterproductive.
I understand the sentiment. However, what is more important is building out the ecosystem and promoting the IC. This must occur through positive messaging only. Maintaining positivity is an immediate existential necessity and there is a ton to be positive about. tECDSA, Bitcoin integration, and the wealth of amazing apps emerging on the IC are where our focus must be. Solving issues of NNS centralisation is a medium-term issue. Early-stage centralisation is always an issue in blockchain platforms and one that tends to resolve itself over time.
4 Likes
Good to know thank you
1 Like
Respectfully I disagree, all of the IC cool features are pointless if the network isn’t decentralized, as a dev knowing I might be building on quicksand constantly has me reconsidering whether I’m spending time doing the right thing.
And while yes all chains start more centralized most of them, all the major ones included, have something the IC doesn’t: hardforks.
Main components of the IC code are patented by Dfinity which in turn is run exclusively by one individual as recent findings have highlighted, that is on its own a big red flag, knowing on top of it this individual upon we all have to trust in, which by itself is absurd in the crypto space, also likes to threaten legal actions simply cannot be ignored.
At this point I’d have rather not known about the letter in the first place, cause now I know there might be a serious underlying issue with the Foundation, but without the specifics and the context behind it, it could all be discarded as an exaggeration.
4 Likes
Yes, but we can work with what we have. A fork is possible but it is premature to execute such a significant maneuver. The only meaningful layer 1 in my opinion is DFINITY. We can at the very least treat this as a pre-launch platform.
I would also say that most other blockchains are vastly more centralised than DFINITY. The reason we feel it so much here is the transparency of the platform - which is yet another reason it should be considered a relatively safe place to develop.
2 Likes
It isn’t without changing pretty much all the code which makes ICP stand out: consensus, chain key tech and other important stuff is under stricter license which doesn’t make it possible to use that code if it doesn’t run on the IC, a.k.a the network Dfinity currently controls, if tomorrow a “the DAO hack” situation were to happen, we wouldn’t have the same luxury as ETH.
Whether the IC is more or less decentralized than other chains, everyone has a different opinion.
1 Like
I agree with your last point.
You don’t have to license technology. You just develop anonymously like happened in the old days. This is also a much healthier way to establish a platform like the IC.
This is greatly needed and I hope it can be reached directly from the NNS follow tab once you have it ready for prime time.
2 Likes
This is what always say. We will decentralize incrementally as we mature organically.
1 Like
How would you suggest we go about conducting those polls? It makes sense that we have motion proposals so that devs know which direction to code in before doing all the work, this feature only seems to be the cause of a lot of controversy at the moment due to perceived inconsistencies with the DFINITY foundations voting criteria.
I think as centralization decays, the glorified polls feature that motion proposals offer will be more beneficial for reaching consensus on a direction to code towards, and therefore, the feature should remain.
In the future, when the NNS is much more decentralized, i think the motion proposal feature is gonna prove to be a great tool for facilitating planning in a decentralized fashion.
I also share your concerns and believe that decentralization is one if not the most pressing issues at the moment.
The motion proposals would become polls…you just change the name and it changes the psychology. Less people expect that the result of the poll will actually happen. ie:
Would you accept or reject a replica that changes the ability to lock tokens from a max of 8 years to 9 years?
4 Likes