Increase Proposal Rejection Cost

Governance
22

@wpb @Kyle_Langham I’d like to add one more idea - new Spam Filter proposal type for rejected Governance proposals, which would be automatically created by NNS for every rejected Governance proposal - and would decide, if those 1 (or 10, or 100) ICP will be burned or not.

  • anyone could create governance proposal same as now
  • could be with higher rejection cost, 10 or even 100 ICP
  • if proposal is Accepted, all is same as now, it was not a spam
  • if proposal is Rejected it would NOT automatically mean that the (1, 10, 100) ICP is burned, but NNS will generate a new Spam Filter proposal
    • if Spam Filter proposal is Accepted by community, the (1, 10, 100) ICP would NOT be burned
    • if Spam Filter proposal is Rejected by community, the (1, 10, 100) ICP would be burned

I believe that this would:

  1. discourage any spammer as per high rejection cost, this would be very effective
  2. minimise governance administration as the Spam Filter proposal would be created only for Rejected Governance proposals
  3. allow easy extension of the process also for other proposal types, in case that would start to be used for NNS spamming
  4. give more confidence to anyone who would like to propose something relevant (would discuss it on forum etc), even with higher rejection cost - as the Spam Filter proposal voting would NOT be about the proposed change, but only if it is a Spam or not - and if the proposal is relevant the funds would not be burned
  5. Rejection Cost could be renamed to Spam Rejection Cost

Or indeed every proposal could come with a check box Is Spam - if is rejected and is not a spam nothing is burned, if is spam (>50% votes) ICP (1, 10, 100…) is burned (I think I saw similar already suggested by @Kyle_Langham)

What do you think?