DFINITY is the single greatest individual profiteer of NNS spam

Governance
22

Angry never, just don’t like responding but I can see that a few here want to control in their favor and therefore I don’t feel this is decentralised forum but more a mob driven by a few. Clearly all messages have a tone.

My assumptions have turn into knowing history from being involved with the Governance forums and seeing the facts as I hold to the claim that the 6 months timer for followers was nothing more than selfishness and should be revoked as everyone who is invested into ICP should have equal rewards and not centralised rewards.

Calling people followers in a derogatory term when there is nothing to vote on but teams updates is not acceptable.

But in the future I will be less passionate and more clear and I appreciate your fee back.

1 Like
23

Thanks for your response. I helps a lot.

I’m pretty sure I understand your point here. I think you are saying that you believe that all stakers should be treated equally. I agree with your point that the rules should apply equally to everyone. I would argue that they do apply equally and programmatically to everyone.

However, I suspect you are coming from the point of view that the rules should never change. This is where I would disagree. In my opinion, the governance system does not exist to pay people an investment return. It exists to incentivize people to participate in governance in a way that we each individually believe is in our own long term best interest, which in aggregate will be in the long term best interest of the IC. The decisions that need to be made for governance of the IC are subjective decisions, which inherently means we will not all agree. The tokenomics are intended to encourage people to participate so that a maximum body of opinion can be heard via their vote. It is not a perfect system yet, but it is moving in the right direction and it can only get better through change.

The changes that have occurred in the past and that have been approved for future implementation (such as the 6 month re-confirmation of followees) have advanced decentralization and should continue moving us in that direction. I think it’s a mischaracterization to claim that folks who support these changes are selfish. I think we simply have a difference of opinion. It’s ok if we agree to disagree.

This is an example of a point you made that I do not understand. I can’t respond to this because no matter how I try to read it I cannot understand the message. It’s not intended to be a criticism at all, just an example.

24

I think you really missed the point.
If you are elected by NNS, then only NNS can fire you.
That actually empowers everyone in DFINITY and ICA.

25

Some months back I read an article that there were concerns about dead people and the rewards they will keep receiving because they selected to follow these groups:

DFINITY Foundation, ICP Maximalist Network, Internet Computer Association, cycledao.xyz and ICDevs.org

It was suggested by a few that this was unfair and that followers who did not actively vote should not receive rewards because they could be dead.

My concern is that by changing the underlying API from under investors and their rights to be rewarded for following their rights may bring a class action to regain their benefits as would be their right.

But from a forum that is disconnected from the NNS and therefore not updating investors of the changes they would like to make to the NNS that in my opinion seems self rewarding and damming to NNS claim to be decentralized.

Are we behaving just like the Top Tech companies changing API’s from under there customers for self gain.

We need to remove the change made to the NNS to unfollow that which was followed by investors and inform the investor via the NNS so that all investors have been informed and not just change the underlying API without notice which is contemptible.

No one put forwards any decentralize options that I am aware of like to the NNS:

A notice that all following on the NNS will be terminated after a period if the investor wasn’t active in logging in or being able to add a NFT or another form of contact in case of an inactive period.

It seemed to me that it was justifiable that if an investor was not active in Governance then it gave further credibility that they should change the underlying API when the NNS does not inform investors that I am aware of on the NNS of the forum.

That the active voters on the disconnected forum should receive more rewards for being active.

Active on what:
Dog boys spam each day on the NNS to give rewards to active voters that were informed on the forums and not the NNS but vai facebook where you had organized spamming for active members known by everyone in this forum and unknown on the NNS.

I gave an idea about how to stop spam on the NNS just by punishing neurons that spam but not one support or change but as soon as you threaten the forum members from making changes to giving dead people their rights then they come out of the woodwork otherwise they are what I call Active Bystanders and those who will undermine this project and walk away with the rewards for their own interests and leave behind a bad reputation of a known spammers haven.

I can assure you that I never once went to dog boys Facebook page to be notified of when the spam was being added to the NNS for the rewards but was active everyday and voted no, only when I saw his spam.

Can you not see that our behavior to allow active voters in allowing spammers to spam and inform us in the ICP forum and make changes to the NNS by the underlying API to disbenefit our own seems more of a dark website.

As for my tone in response to past comments that were made as passionate and well meaning to opposers that may bring harm to this forum and the NNS.

For this very reason I have become sensitive to the name Follower or uninformed as criticism.

26

I’m familiar with the article because I wrote it. It’s the content of proposal 55651. The point about dead people was a minor emphasis, yet an important point. The concept applies equally to people who have locked themselves out of their internet identity by losing devices and not being responsible about storing their recovery phrase. There are also people who were granted significant neurons at genesis who have never claimed them. The point is that there are a lot of ways to be locked out of participation in governance, yet default configuration of neurons results in permanent following and permanent receipt of rewards that will never be claimed. This is not appropriate in system that is designed to reward governance participation. We get paid voting rewards for only one thing…voting participation. It should require some minimum level of active participation, which was the main point of the proposal.

To be clear, the NNS is a mutable system. No one who participates in ICP governance has ever been promised specific voting rewards and no contracts have ever been offered for staking with a promise that the rules will not change. In fact, the whole point of the NNS is recognition that the code will need to change. The NNS provides a fair and decentralized mechanism to enable change, including changes to the tokenomics that incentivize participation. Hence, in my opinion, there is no standing for any court case filed as a result of the governing body for the NNS implementing a change.

4 Likes
27

@kvic

Am I understanding you right when I think that your main issue is that the changes to the NNS Governance are not advertised well ahead of time on the NNS app itself instead of being announce on this forum or Reddit, Twitter or any other web page??

1 Like
28

I grant you that you have a point as have I and this venue should be voting on the issues with the knowledge of all neuron owners but I am not sure that is the case.

As for the assumption that we may not have a situation of a class action, I am reminded of reading such a case being brought against another decentralized coin and legal may not agree with you.

As for my view on future rewards, this project is not a project in my opinion that will offer great rewards as it is built for cycles and not like the top five coins.

My interest is the project idea and Domonic vision.

I would prefer a different outcome to rectify your concerns as a realistic problem and my opinion which I have always been accused as a trouble maker for not following when I see another point of view and rewards come second which seem to be the driver for change and not fixing the issue.

Which is off topic I think of your concerns of this topic and I don’t have any concerns with DFINITY being the greatest profiteer as this strengthened this project but I see your point that we should understand this and work to change this in the future but I certainly would not trust this to the Governance group that in my opinion have undermine us.

1 Like
29

wow this clearly indicates voter fraud… or am I just exaggerating? are we seriously ignoring the fact that DFINITY and ICPMN’s actions indicate collusion and voting fraud?