This proposal is asking Dfinity to make a few simple modifications to the NNS dApp in order to make it less likely that people are tricked into voting Yes for a governance proposal that is disguised as a routine business proposal (see Figures 1 and 2 below). The modifications are listed below in order of decreasing importance.
All changes are in reference to the Voting tab in the NNS dApp (see Figures 3 and 4 below):
- For the Topics filter, check the Governance topic and uncheck all other topics by default.
- For the Topics filter, remember the boxes that were selected by the user the last time they used the Voting tab.
- For the “Hide “Open” proposals where all your neurons have voted on are ineligible to vote” option, default to selecting the check box.
Most people who vote manually on NNS proposals become aware of new governance proposals because they receive push notifications from the Telegram, Twitter, or OpenChat proposals bots. They typically go the the NNS looking to vote on Governance proposals. Yet they are currently exposed to many other proposal Topics that are generally regarded as routine business. It becomes confusing to know at a glance which proposals are Governance and which are not Governance.
Two governance proposals were recently submitted (56592 and 56591) yesterday that were presented like routine subnet update proposals. They were submitted by a neuron ID that has been submitting spam proposals (the neuron owner is unknown). Many people, including a prominent public known neuron, voted Yes for one of these spam proposals and cast over 6% of total voting power.
It can be easily understood why people were tricked into voting for that proposal thinking it was routine business. It required close examination to know it was spam. When you are used to seeing those types of proposals in the NNS dApp and they look like valid routine business, it seems reasonable to vote for it. Perhaps a better way to display those routine business proposals is to filter them out by default so people have to intentionally select them when they really want to explore non Governance topics. That way the mental framework for people seeking to vote on Governance proposals is that they are looking at Governance proposals by default.
I think the changes requested in this proposal are probably easy for Dfinity to make, but if they are not then I would be happy with a compromise. Item 1 is my most preferred change. I’d really like to see items 2 and 3 as well, but it’s ok if they are not implemented or they are implemented at a later date.
- If you believe the changes outlined in this Proposal should be implemented, then please vote Yes.
- Otherwise, vote No.
The information below this line will not be posted in the NNS proposal.
Deliberation on this proposal topic will be lead by Wenzel Bartlett (@wpb)
I am motivated to make this proposal for 2 basic reasons:
- I have been wanting to see these changes for a while and now have an example demonstrating why it is an important change for our governance system.
- This proposal is intended to demonstrate a simple crowdfunding model for governance proposals (details below) that will hopefully benefit the IC community and the proposer.
I want to submit this proposal because I think it will pass and is an improvement to the user experience for voting on governance proposals. However, I will only submit it after raising the funds necessary to cover the proposal reject fee of 10 ICP. While the proposal reject fee is refundable to me as the proposer if it passes, it is not going to be refundable to the people who crowdfund the proposal. The fee will remain locked in my 8 year neuron. Hence, if I am successful at submitting a proposal that passes for a change that I believe is important, then I will also benefit from that proposal because I will keep the proposal reject fee. Hopefully this experiment turns out to be a positive model for how to maximize the incentives offered by the current governance system.
This proposal will be submitted to the NNS if the proposal reject fee of 10 ICP can be raised by way of crowdfunding. If you believe this proposal should be submitted to the NNS, then please consider donating to the account ID listed below. This neuron is my personal neuron that I have used to submit all my governance proposals plus a few proposals for other people in the community. No matter how much ICP is raised for this proposal, all of it will be used to top up the neuron. This neuron has an 8 year dissolve delay and is not dissolving.
Figure 1: Proposal 56592, which is a Governance proposal intentionally made to look like a Subnet Management proposal
Figure 2: Proposal 56273, which is the real Subnet Management proposal
Figure 3: The top of the Voting tab in the NNS dApp showing the Topics filter button
Figure 4: The default selections of Topics in the filter