How to review the content of the proposal under the premise of decentralization

We need to develop a bill by initiating a motion proposal, and then set an optional proposal reviewer in the front end of the NNS and cooperate with the corresponding reward and punishment.

I can roughly describe the implementationbut,But I am not a developer and legal expert, there may be many places that have not been considered, and the translation problem:

Reviewer’s way of operation

  1. Establish an optional proposal reviewer in NNS DAPP

  2. If you open the proposal reviewer, then you will automatically follow the examiner vote.

  3. NNS needs to make a detailed provisions for the garbage proposal (we are hereinafter referred to as NNS Proposal Content Review Law)

  4. The Reviewer shall determine whether a proposal belongs to the spam proposal according to the NNS Proposal Content Review Law.

  5. The Reviewer will vote “NO” on the “spam proposal”. The trial of the “NO” will not appear in the list of users who open the examiner.

  6. The reviewer should judge the proposal within the specified time. If the specified time has not been voted, the proposal will be released.

  7. The reward of the examiner should be paid by NNS

  8. The examiner in the reviewer can consist of a group of neurons

  9. You can set “default start” or “default shutdown” by a motion proposal.

Related security mechanism:

  1. The neurons in the examiner should mortgage the appropriate amount of ICP

  2. A complaint proposal should be allowed, the complaint proposal cannot be reviewed by the reviewer, and the complaint proposal should have a high rejection cost.

  3. For illegal review, if the corresponding complaint proposal passes, the complainant and the examiner should carry out corresponding rewards and punishments.

  4. In order to reduce the impact of the reviewer for illegal review, the neurons in the reviewer should only can vote ”no“

but

Everyone can find the implementation of the review program depends on the NNS Proposal Content Review Law. I think the current NNS cannot legislate in a manner of decentralization.

1 Like

I think we have arrived at the same conclusion in that we need human reviewers. Almost everything else can be botted.

Take a look at my proposal. Maybe we can melt some ideas together and mutually agree on some key areas.

For example. We can have the proposer pay for the Reviewers, this payment will be part of the proposal cost. This way there is no out of pocket cost for Dfinity.

Initially this idea was only to siphon spam from valid proposals but we could take it a step further and have reviewers look for specific proposal requirements.

Let me know if you want to work together on this.

I would like to suggest that you would make the system more technical when you should allow the process to cleanse itself by changing proposal manipulation and punishment to the stake owners and their voting power that I have outlined below.

Decentralization is described as planning and decision making that is distributed or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group.

Staked voting Power = 1 vote for every staked ICP plus Dissolved Delay, Length Delay and possible maturity rewards.

Without getting into the logic, it means that there is NO Decentralization!

In my opinion you will have the same problem as we face today with individuals manipulating the IC for personal gain.

Major investors already gain rewards through the purchase of each ICP and then reap further rewards for voting but should not be rewarded for personal gains by having more voting power.

I am not saying that an individual would purposely propose manipulation but we have seen major players with billions do and say things that the majority do not agree with and we end up with an uneven playing field.

I would suggest a system of 1 vote per owner and all their stakes.

There are no bad organizations, just many different opinions within.

Simple Example:
Proposal: Financial disincentive for Neuron Owner for a non-vote or following.

Neuron Owner 1. = 1 ICP = 1 Vote
Neuron Owner 2. = 2 ICP = 2 Votes

Owner 1 voted NO
Owner 2 voted Yes

Proposal Passes

The theme that I see through reading proposals and forum conversations is that most of us don’t have the expertise or understanding to vote on all proposals but are often criticized for following because of our lack of understanding, to take rewards from followers and give those rewards to those who have a better understanding which shows their lack of understanding or maybe manipulating for more rewards for themselves.

As a prospective staker I have spent many hours getting to understand the processes of the IC and have struggle at times and feel that to be a new staker I will be face with many unsuspected proposals that I will rely on Default Neuron 27 to vote for me, get to know other stakers that I feel I would like to follow and make personal votes on issues that I do or think I understand for the maximum rewards I can receive.

I would like to think that 1 vote per person on any and all stakes they own, a financial disincentive for those who would manipulate staking for personal benefit by removing voting rights and I feel a democratic voting style would have a Decentralization outcome where bad proposals would not be voted for.

cooperate? I can’t make it happen, I can only come up with this idea

1 Like

It’s hard to manipulate, it’s only built on the front end of NNS, it doesn’t force everyone to turn it on, and it has appeal proposals

There was a post last week that stated they would hack the NNS which explained by purchasing 32 thousand coins they would have the vote power to manipulate voting therefore update the NNS in their favour which is the same as we have seen with Musk and his pump and dump manipulation which are for no other reason in my opinion to make a few more billion at the cost of his followers.