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
-
Establish an optional proposal reviewer in NNS DAPP
-
If you open the proposal reviewer, then you will automatically follow the examiner vote.
-
NNS needs to make a detailed provisions for the garbage proposal (we are hereinafter referred to as NNS Proposal Content Review Law)
-
The Reviewer shall determine whether a proposal belongs to the spam proposal according to the NNS Proposal Content Review Law.
-
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.
-
The reviewer should judge the proposal within the specified time. If the specified time has not been voted, the proposal will be released.
-
The reward of the examiner should be paid by NNS
-
The examiner in the reviewer can consist of a group of neurons
-
You can set “default start” or “default shutdown” by a motion proposal.
Related security mechanism:
-
The neurons in the examiner should mortgage the appropriate amount of ICP
-
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.
-
For illegal review, if the corresponding complaint proposal passes, the complainant and the examiner should carry out corresponding rewards and punishments.
-
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.