If SNS fails, continue to initiate a new SNS proposal. There should be a certain time interval between the two proposals. I recommend a time interval of 3 months
Great idea ! It’s currently to easy for those project to say “Whooop I asked 10 times more ICP and since none can afford it, I will just lower the cap”
Agree with OP, there could also be a more substantial fee for initiating the SNS sale.
Sounds good, or like 21 - 30 days.
Well I had more like 4-5 months in mind
How could this technically be done? A different user account from the same person could simply create another proposal to avoid any form of limits.
You could argue that the proposal contents will be similar but still, to make the decision to reject this proposal is not something that can be done by a single person due to the nns being decentralized. Also auto detection stuff is a rabbit hole I’d probably suggest to avoid because of a long list of reasons.
So basically it would be a vote to reject based on it being within a time span. And people can vote however they’d like, basically rendering the whole concept useless since the proposal itself is already being voted on by the same people even without this prior vote.
When more and more projects will go the SNS route, I think we’ll have to accept the new reality that there will always be a growing list of proposals. But then people will have a larger list of projects to choose from to participate in and likely make more informed decisions and compare projects.
Instead of focusing on limiting proposals from coming in, I think it makes more sense to continuously improve the tooling around it so people can better find the proposals that matter to them and make more informed decisions regarding participation.
The introduced ICP costs of creating a proposal do work effectively to prevent mass automated proposal spam. And might be something that could be used to control the flow of incoming proposals in different ways. But I don’t think a financial barrier by itself is the right approach without also focusing on the more important details like the tooling to make sure people can find the proposals that matter to them and make more informed decisions.
Let’s not forget, in the end the NNS is a decentralized democratic system where decisions are made based on voting token holders, there is no technical/human moderation since that would go against this concept both ethically and technically.
Maybe some automated moderation systems could be implemented and adopted someday through proposals but they will always be limited in intelligence compared to human moderation. As for human moderation, neurons could be formed that vote on behalf of groups of holders that are controlled by organizations with human moderators.
So overall, if a majority votes in favor of something, then that’s their choice, it might not be something that everyone agrees on but it’s currently the best approach we have to make decisions as a community. Proposals can be adopted by the community to tweak the thresholds for passing/rejecting a proposal where needed.
We could also add a step like, they should be named neurons and a named neuron can only make NNS every 3 months.
I second this 90 days is more than enough time for a team to re-evaluate why their proposal did not pass, and make the necessary changes for motion adoption. This would also most likely filter out and lessen the amount of scam proposals as only dedicated teams would put in the necessary time and work effort to pursue the success of their dream