Agreed - The more we increase the rejection cost, the more we centralize control over who can submit to the NNS (based off of the existing voting power and influence of the submitter).
Let’s forget spam for a second.
Why is @ysyms able to submit proposals? → because he was crowdfunded by whales.
Why is @wpb able to submit proposals? → because he was an early investor, has enormous influence in the community, and I would assume ICMaxis is sitting on a pile of ICP.
Many others, even @skilesare has highlighted the reject cost is making him think twice about submitting proposals. And he should…why should ICDevs have to choose between spending 10 ICP to fund an independent developer bounty vs. a governance proposal? There’s a good chance his proposal gets rejected, as it took over 3 times just to be recognized as a known neuron, vs. one time for Cycle Dao and Maxis.
If anything, this successful crowdfunding effort shows that we have reached step one in the unintended consequences of this proposal passing that I mentioned here.
This only highlights the importance of the community supporting proposals that have allowed for adequate time to receive and address critical feedback, think about edge cases scenarios, and iterate upon those flaws → not proposals that in a rush or have a deadline (to push out a fix).
There were many great ideas being discussed and finalized as a result of the leadership that @wpb and @Kyle_Langham showed in organizing the community, but now many of these ideas will not be submitted to the NNS due to the increased proposal reject cost.
I think everyone was 100% well intentioned in moving as quick to ideate and vote as they did, and I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I hope this is a learning point going forward.