How to fix the spam proposals that NNS is currently encountering

[ysyms]

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.

1. 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）

2. Completely solve the problem that launching a motion proposal can greatly increase revenue

3. 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

[ysyms]

@wpb what do you think？How about May 10th if you can（ICP Mercury Milestone）

[wpb]

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.

[ysyms]

I should not submit, I just suggest that you modify the proposal that confirms the followees every six months. Compared to it, periodic resets reduce complexity and the effect can be seen quickly

[justmythoughts]

@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.

[darien]

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

[ysyms]

Reset all followers, so why do I still need to raise rewards through motions?

[justmythoughts]

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.

Community Discussion: Revise Governance Voting Rewards to Fix Proposal Spamming Rewards Exploit

Yes, I think the percentage of the total voting awards attributed to participating in governance proposals over a 7 day period should be fixed to whatever the community aligns on (50%, 75%, 80%, etc.), regardless of the number of governance proposals submitted during that time period (0 to infinity). I’m arguably not an expert on governance voting rewards and do not work for DFINITY, so my initial observations have simply come from noticing my mergable maturity, and following discussions on th…

[ysyms]

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

[ysyms]

How to ensure the increase rate of ICP？

[wpb]

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.

[justmythoughts]

@wpb

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.

Can you elaborate on your points, specifically on:

• How it would remove financial incentives
• What you mean when you talk about an “imbalance between voting participation in Governance proposals and All Topics Except Governance” in the context of spam proposals.
• How you see this as the primary cause for spam proposals

I want to make sure I understand your point and reasoning

[Kyle_Langham]

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.

[darien]

I’m not sure I understand your question here…
could you elaborate more?

@ysyms

How to ensure the increase rate of ICP？

[ysyms]

NNS rewards are related to the additional issuance of ICP

[ysyms]

In order to ensure the additional issuance speed of ICP, it is necessary to distribute according to the weight.

[wpb]

I think the best way to answer your questions is to point you to a post I made a few days ago in response to similar questions asked by @Zane…

Reset Followees for the "All Topics Except Governance" Category

You are right that active stakers would get more rewards initially. In some ways it is the mathematical equivalent of submitting an infinite number of governance proposals every day without submitting any spam proposals, at least in the beginning. That’s why it removes the incentives to spam the NNS with governance proposals. They are no longer needed if the spamming is happening for the purpose of higher voting rewards. Those higher rewards for active neurons currently come at the expense o…

Here is another response to a question from @skileshare that lends some insight as well…

Proposal to restrict rewards qualification to a threshold

I would argue that the imbalance that we have right now is not the proposal weights. When I stop to think about the weights, they feel right. There is no way that exchange rate proposals should be valued the same as governance proposals, especially since there are 144 of them every day. Instead, I argue that the imbalance is the participation rate. I think there is too much satisfaction in the community with treating ICP tokenomics like a security. It is not stock in a company. It is a gov…

[justmythoughts]

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?

[ysyms]

Malicious links and other extreme content attacks are actually pretty easy to fix, I just don’t think ic has come across such attacks, if you think it’s necessary I can give a nice fix very quickly

[anonymous]

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.