DFINITY Foundation's voting on motion "Frequently initiated motion proposal period lasting..." (#52579)

Dear ICP Community,

TLDR: DFINITY Foundation will vote NO on a proposal:


The DFINITY Foundation (via its named neuron 27) has started to vote on governance proposals. Since the DFINITY Foundation is a critical player in the ecosystem, our long-term intent is to make a habit of explaining our rationale for how we vote in motion proposals, Foundation voting power, etc… for further visibility.

Proposal in question

In this particular case, we will vote NO on the Proposal:

We want to be clear in what this means and does not mean:

  1. Foundation’s default voting for voting is to REJECT any proposal it does not fully understand and agree with. The foundation is rejecting because it believes motion proposals are supposed to:
  • Inspire direction or conversations to bring the IC forward
  • be actionable (they have a goal)

In this particular case, the foundation found the objective of proposal #52579 (as quoted on the proposal):

Increase the daily return of neurons participating in motion proposals

is not the intent of the motion proposals.

  1. Foundation may yet vote YES on future proposals from this neuron if proposals inspire direction or conversations to bring the IC forward or have an action.

This is the first instance that I’ve seen of spam governance proposals, but which i mean that the proposal shows little interest in actually being about governance instead, as you point out, stating a financial goal.

My concern is that dfinity acts as a de facto screening mechanism for such proposals. This has some practical utility at the moment, but I am guessing that the foundation does not see this as their role in the future.

Are they any existing or planned efforts to have a practical, transparent screening method to prevent time being wasted by automated or irrelevant content?

1 Like