First of all, NNS has not encountered a spam proposal attack. We only need to reset the following status of all types of proposals on a fixed date every year to solve many current problems.
Avoid the impact of silent neurons (especially those with automatic reinvestment enabled) on governance and token systems （For example: even if DFINITY’s neurons are maliciously controlled, 55% of neurons will not modify the follow state）
Completely solve the problem that launching a motion proposal can greatly increase revenue
We can establish Reset Day as a festival for IC, thereby increasing community engagement
I’ve heard that many people are reluctant to participate in motion proposals because they don’t know how to use the command line. I think it takes DFINITY’s efforts. DFINITY can develop easier tools and can do more tutorials on this,. But don’t make them the biggest risk to the entire system.
The idea came from @wpb and I think it’s better than regularly confirming followees
This would be an excellent solution in my opinion. When I first read your proposal above I was thinking May 10 would be a great choice for this Reset Day.
Do you plan to submit this idea as a motion proposal? I encourage you to submit it.
I’m not sure if multiple of the proposals that are currently planned will pass, but if they do then I think a logical next step would be for Dfinity to offer feedback on the proposals that pass and for the community to engage in further deliberation on the path forward. Hence, I would have no problem voting to adopt this proposal and the proposal that Kyle and I plan to submit even though both accomplish the similar goals in slightly different ways.
@wpb Careful, this would only benefit the attack mounted by @ysyms even more. Resetting followees would increase the governance rewards for a short amount of time as it would take a period of 1-week to 2 months for most of the current governance voters to resubmit their followees. During this period, it would be even more lucrative to submit and vote on NNS governance proposals. We would be rewarding the spammers and penalizing less active voters.
I think the following reset should be done and also, just eliminate reward redistribution, whichever neuron votes get its share of reward. The share of the non voting neuron should be discarded some how and not redistributed
Resetting all followers will reduce the amount of NNS voters that participate in governance proposals. This means that the same “governance rewards pie” is getting split amongst fewer people, resulting in more rewards for active voters (including the spammer most likely).
This post describes the problem with a step-by-step example of what’s going on in the code.
The motion proposal takes away the rewards of the neurons that “only voted for proposals other than the motion proposal”, Resetting the follow state of all types of proposals allows neurons actively participating in governance to get the full benefit, so naturally I don’t need to initiate motion proposals
Actually, it would completely disincentivize spam motion proposals that are submitted for the purpose of financial gain. There would no longer be an imbalance between voting participation in Governance proposals and All Topics Except Governance, which is the primary root cause for spam proposals.
I really like this idea. It’s accomplishes a similar objective as the 6-month follower reset, but does so in a way that could be more easily communicated to the community. I particularly like using 10MAY as the date… almost as an annual celebration of the genesis anniversary.
There might be some details we need to hammer out, like should we pause proposals around that time to give neuron holders a chance to re-set their follower. But those details could be established after the proposal vote.
@ysyms - if your proposal 55445 fails, I would recommend resubmitting it with specific, actionable text. I imagine some votes will come in with Reject only because the text is vague or because the voter didn’t have more time to evaluate and comment. I think the community could help write a future proposal, if you wish. I think Wenzel and I will make a specific comment on this idea as part of our 6-month reset proposal text.
I see - thanks for linking your argument. It seems we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.
If we pass this proposal and reset the followees - the spammer wins.
They are rewarded and receive even more governance rewards in the short term - while less active participants get punished. This goes on until we get back to a similar point that we’re at today, maybe 3 to 4 months down the line when there are more passive retail investors that have “caught on” to the resets. Then another reset is passed.
Fast forward a year and people are now on top of when the resets happen, and reset their followees exactly on “NNS Reset Day”. Immediately after each reset the voters go passive and let the followees to all the work. We haven’t solved spam on the IC, and all spam including malicious links/photos/language are front and center visible to voters. The only thing we’ve done is made voters aware of when the reset day is, and depending on your perspective we stole/transfered governance rewards from less active participants to more active participants (including the spammer) during each reset of this process.
It doesn’t solve the actual problem of spam or non-actionable proposals being submitted to the IC, and rewards the spammer.
I can see how IC Maxi and current active IC participants will support this proposal, but it will turn away new investors who don’t want that type of commitment. No other blockchain that I’m aware of requires this type of active commitment from their investors, so we’d be drawing a firm line separating the IC from other blockchains. I’d imagine this would scare off retail, larger investors, and anyone who doesn’t like to obsess over/check their investments weekly.
I’m thinking about all of my tech, non-tech, and developer friends. Some are investors, some are staked in cryptocurrencies, but none would want to spend this much time thinking about the IC or any other investment/blockchain. @wpb you, I and many others on this forum are in the 5% of early adopters that are obsessed with this project and forum. We have to think about those outside of our bubble who don’t even know about the IC yet, or those who will never check the forums as many times in a day as you or I.
Why should any retail investor or firm buy ICP if this passes?
Resetting it indeed wouldn’t help. On the other hand, I kind of agree for the resetting of the following list, at least once a year. If a person dies, the followee would keep that voting power for life.