Grants for voting neurons

[timk11]

Hi @lara @cryptoschindler and other team members. Any further updates on how this scheme will operate in the months to come?

[cryptoschindler]

Hey, thanks for the heads up. We still need more time to develop the long term solution, so we’re extending the voting neuron grants for another 6 months or until the long term solution has been deployed, whatever happens first.

[Lorimer]

Thanks Moritz,

Can you confirm what the procedure will be for the NNS to reconfirm and/or to change the election decision? (given that the 6 month term that the original votes applied to is coming to an end)

Numerous things have happened since the NNS originally voted, including a team neuron becoming an individual neuron, an individual neuron being upgraded for a team neuron, and reconfiguration within other teams. The original votes that were cast were also cast at a time where there was little in the way of information about the quality of reviews that would be posted by the different candidates. The NNS now has this information.

I think it would be in the best interests of decentralisation and competitiveness to hold a re-election. This will provide an opportunity for new candidates to apply and make their case. Perhaps this is already the plan? It seemed to be where things were going based on previous discussion.

@cryptoschindler

There may be others who held back from applying after realizing they had missed the deadline, and accepting this submission could undermine the integrity of the process.
[…]
In the future, we may consider adjustments, including additional funding, more reviewers, or extending deadlines where appropriate.

In particular, I’d hope to see @EnzoPlayer0ne put himself forward and given another chance. I’d also like to see CO.DELTA (a new neuron formed as a result of this initiative) given the chance to make its case for conducting reviews on the other topics. I’d also like to see if there are any new candidates that are interested in taking part.

Is there a plan for re-elections? If not, can we open this up to discussion, and a possible motion?

Thanks,
Alex

[cryptoschindler]

Hey Lorimer,

thanks for the suggestion and the thoughtful reply. At the moment we are not planning for reelections and want to continue the program as is.

[cryptoschindler]

Hey everyone,

For the upcoming review period starting April 15th, we plan to increase the grant for Participant Management & Node Admin from $750 to $1,500 for single reviewers. Additionally, we’ll be adding the API BN Management topic to the existing Subnet Management grant, raising the grant from $1,500 to $1,600 for single reviewers.

Regarding the new API BN Management topic, we’d like reviewers to follow these steps when evaluating proposals:

1. Make sure the nodes have a domain name and an IPv4 address and are not dead (check registry and dashboard)
2. Make sure the global distribution is still good (API BNs in all regions)

Please share your thoughts.

[aligatorr89]

Hi from CO.DELTA,

After discussion with teammates @Lorimer and @MalithHatananchchige it is clear we are up for additional API BN Management challenge. We aim to finish requirements in next days to comply with our™ - Look Test Automate policy.

[wpb]

Thank you for considering these changes. Did DFINITY consider making the grant increase for Participant Management and Node Admin proposals retroactive for the month of March 15 - April 14 since there was such a high and unexpected uptick in the number of proposals that we saw? All reviewers spent a large excess of time reviewing all proposals relative to the grant time commitment expectations.

Also, will you please confirm that the grant increases posted above will apply to teams as well as single reviewers?

The CodeGov team is happy to start reviewing API BN Management proposals. In fact, we have already been reviewing them informally and can confirm that it will not be a problem.

[borovan]

So it’s a “routine admin exercise” when I do it, but you’re looking to get paid extra?

How hard is it to check the wiki and find out that a node provider isn’t even on the list.

[wpb]

@borovan

So it’s a “routine admin exercise” when I do it, but you’re looking to get paid extra?

Touché. I wasn’t the one who had to do the work required by the grant though. I’m just fighting for them.

[zenithcode]

Hi @cryptoschindler Team Zenith Code would love to start reviewing API BN Management proposals as well.

[Lorimer]

This is why the NNS needs to be offerred a re-election. I’m somewhat baffled that we’re not doing this. It’s not really very democratic (which was the spirit of this initiative at the start).

[cryptoschindler]

Thank you for considering these changes. Did DFINITY consider making the grant increase for Participant Management and Node Admin proposals retroactive for the month of March 15 - April 14 since there was such a high and unexpected uptick in the number of proposals that we saw? All reviewers spent a large excess of time reviewing all proposals relative to the grant time commitment expectations.

It was considered but decided against.

Also, will you please confirm that the grant increases posted above will apply to teams as well as single reviewers?

Yes, this will apply to teams as well.

[cryptoschindler]

Since there was no pushback, the above changes kicked in for the current review period (starting April 15th). Those changes are reflected in the initial post of the this topic as well now.

[cryptoschindler]

Dear reviewers,

Please ensure that you do not add proposals from other categories to the Evidence Collection sheet. For the previous period, we had proposal 135930 listed under the Protocol Canister Management topic, whereas it actually belongs to the Application Canister Management category. If you use vpgeek to identify proposals by topic, please be aware that vpgeek currently does not distinguish between these two categories and labels both as Protocol Canister Management.

Please check proposal topics and flag them if they’re wrong.

Thank you!

[ZackDS]

Apologies for the inconvenience created by including ACM to PCM, (even if it kind of made sense, since it is usually part of the main proposal, in that case the 4th archive cannister) anyways we will make sure even if we review them not to include it. Also we have discussed it ICP Ledger Canister Suite Upgrades 2025-03-21 - #3 by mathiasb but it turned out that wasn’t the case even after the fact. It’s off topic so I’ll stop here.

[borovan]

I’d like to re-open this to give Co.Delta a chance, and stop CodeGov’s monopoly. What does everybody think?

[Phasma]

yes, i agree with you

[Lorimer]

Proposal 136448

Cross-posting here for visibility.

New Election for Voting Grants

Background & Current Situation July 2024: A six month intermediate grant programme was announced, to reward neurons that actively review and vote on critical proposal topics. Grants for all four topics ultimately went to a single entity, CodeGov, largely through votes steered by the Synapse community. See all proposals listed, see results, and check VPGeek for inspection. The six-month term has now ended. Instead of re-running the election, the Foundation announced a unilateral six-month extens…

Thanks for this @borovan, I think the proposal makes good points. Here’s an additional post related to this.

[borovan]

We’ll be replacing you thank you very much. You’ve done such a good job that 70% of the nodes are controlled by about 3 people.

[ritvick]

Hey we also applied for voting grants but haven’t got it.
Would be interested to take up some work around protocol canister management.