They can still do proposals and dumb them down for layman’s but this still shouldn’t mean people vote the same as them automatically. People should read proposal and vote according to their understanding.
For sure. I agree with that but I would say that that would need to be put in place first. Although I suppose this would introduce a sort of meritocracy with votes: If you’re not capable of understanding the vote you don’t get the rewards. Or I suppose you would if you just arbitrarily vote…
I think if we don’t allow following known neurons this hurts the work that groups like CodeGov do because I personally “trust” them to review code in a way that is conducive to the wellbeing and advancement of the IC. This helps me get rewards while leaving the vote to those who know better than I. I think following a vote can be useful.
I do agree that something should be done to prevent the above quote though however.
1 Like
Liquid democracy is very powerful if done well. We should want people delegating to those who are experts. I’m never going to be a network architecture expert, so I’m happy to delegate to someone who is. The network is better for it than me making subnet assignment decisions.
Unfortunately, at the moment there is no real financial incentive for independent voices to become expert in the administered domains.
We can fix that though. Will be a process.
2 Likes
But you would still have known neurons. You would see how they vote and follow suite. But it needs to be a conscious effort. Manually vote after seeing how they did. Clicking follow versus actively being involved in the process of forming the blockchain path should not be considered equal.
In theory, following the “right” person should be more valuable than voting yourself…the issue is how to determine “right”? Maybe the same way as spawning neurons? Market price?
1 Like
Something I really appreciated early on when I joined the IC were articles that @Accumulating.icp wrote on Nuance discussing how he voted as well as how proposals would effect/have effected the IC. I don’t know if he still does this but it was nice. I don’t think we need to make this mandatory, but I think that things like that certainly help in providing a sort of profile on known neurons. It helps users to understand the neuron more.
Furthermore, I think the dApp VPgeek could be really useful here by providing a type of election/voting service where users can vote on what known neurons are voting punctually & consistently in line with what their stated purpose or expertise is. This would help to highlight neurons who are exceeding at representing users interests and help identify what neurons are voting with intention.
1 Like
VPGeek still has a lot of work to do to make their public and known neuron vote history useful in the way you describe. Half the people listed are current or past voting members for Synapse and CodeGov. VPGeek still hasn’t made any attempt to align the voting that these people do with the topics where they claim a specialization. In fact, some of the names are not even voting members in the public spotlight anymore and there are new names that are not represented at all. VPGeek makes no attempt to keep up with changes even though Synapse and CodeGov both display the active and past voting members on our websites and all changes occur with neuron management proposals that are publicly recorded on the dashboard. VPGeek also prioritizes neurons that vote quickly by including all open proposals in their vote history rankings. This means the neurons that vote using chron jobs every 6 hours or so and cast an automatic yes vote on all open proposals routinely show up at the top of their list and look like good choices to follow. The other neurons that are more systematic and intentional about how they vote are always showing up as having a lower voting rate even though most of the gaps in voting are for open proposals. VPGeek also heavily grays out the number of proposals that each neuron has voted on, which is an indication of how long the neuron has been serving the ICP ecosystem. It’s not really a useful service to the ecosystem in the current state because you can’t easily tell which neurons are actively voting based on an educated decision.
1 Like
I do not understand why we not doing this already. Incentives should be a core part of any protocol governance. Somehow every other crypto project gets this but we don’t.
1 Like
Interestingly I have tried to propose in several forums (or at least on Twitter) that there should be a way to “sell” your voting power to the highest bidder if say you had no interest in the outcome of a particular vote.
For example, about every week or so a meme coin submits a proposal to be listed on Open Chat’s wallet. I don’t care either way if a particular meme coin gets listed or not, so I remain neutral on the matter and my vote is usually decided by a fart or a flip of the coin to get my governance rewards.
Because this particular subject I am voting on doesn’t matter to me, but surely matters to the person submitting the proposal or to other meme coins that are already listed and in the Open Chat wallets and ecosystem, I think someone may like to buy my voting power for that particular vote.
I’m not sure if this is something we could incorporate into the NNS but maybe a Dapp to sell voting power for a particular vote. If a Dapp cannot be built to provide these services to the buyers/sellers of voting power than I can always be contacted on the forum here or Twitter and we can make arrangements for the sale of voting power for a particular vote, let’s make a market.
3 Likes
If not vpGeek then some other dApp and someone else can do this hopefully. I think the ability for users to use a vote equaling 1 in a separate dApp to highlight active and congruent neurons with clear understanding and intentional voting is immensely helpful in this situation.
1 Like
MODERATOR NOTE:
This is YET another example of a discussion (which I actually care about btw) which is completely driven off the rails by @8yrneuron . This combined with multiple ad hominem attacks, I am going to silence this user.
8 Likes
I am particularly upset because I actually was very interested in the early stages of feedback and discussion… before it was taken off the rails.
5 Likes
(This is my personal opinion, not speaking for dfinity):
I want to address this because they highlight some subtle parts of the proposal:
- Day-to-day people in this forum tend to lean more towards changing NNS rules to improve the network
- There are a lot of people who do NOT like NNS rule changes
My personal stance is complex:
- I think NNS should not be immutable. I think it should be reactive.
- However, I do think it should be changed as minimal as possible, and always with an eye towards being trusted. I rather have a slightly suboptimal system that is trusted, that super “optimal” one that is NOT trusted. This is why i empathize with people who don’t like tokenomics changes.
- How do we measure “trust in the system”? I think there is no objective way and every person has their own threshold. There is no wrong answer.
and lastly… a lot of times, ideas are not properly tested and validated even at small scales.
Which is why I suggested to @bjoernek the following:
This does a few things:
-
No NNS change so it satisfies the contingent that does not like NNS changes
-
It allows us (the community) to have a data or validation that reducing following does not make the sky fall down. I think we as a community do not value enough the power to say “We have already testes the rocket 100 times going to the moon, I think its ready for a test for Mars” instead of “Lets have rocket 1 go to mars”. If you are a person who likes changes, it would help your cause to have data to back up that changes did not crash the system… inversely, if changes are bad (these are complex systems), its good to test with small data sample before pushing any big changes.
4 Likes
Now people reasonably say… “this does not change incentives for actively voting” and i dont disagree, but I think this minimizes the potential cost of changes. a soft reset allows for getting data, and reversing if we need to!
-
Soft reset allows DFINITY to stop voting with a neuron… and then start voting again with it if we need to for some reason.
-
Soft reset allows DFINITY to maybe throttle where old neuron stops voting on certain topics, but not others… collect data, and continue.
2 Likes
@bjoernek @diegop I believe I understand the approach being proposed. If we adopt this proposal DF would eventually have to stop using the current voting neuron to manually cast ballots and start using a new voting neuron. I have two questions about this plan:
-
Is DF willing to commit to never configuring the old voting neuron to follow another neuron on any topics?
-
If this proposal is adopted and implemented, would DF commit to making the old voting neuron public so that we can confirm its follower settings?
1 Like
As mentioned above the transition from the old to the new neuron could happen in stages “After the transitional period DFINITY would stop voting with its old known neuron. This period could be managed differently across various proposal topics, allowing us to throttle the process to effectively test and measure the impact.”
And yes, after the transitional period (whose length we would need to define) the old neuron would not be used anymore for voting. Maybe we could even dissolve it 
That seems like a very natural suggestion. I will double check, but I do not have any concerns right now.
Can someone tell me: if the neuron holder reward is going to decrease, are we also going to reduce all other emissions by the same percentage(node reward), so that actually we are back to nobody loosing in the inflation game, but still less ICP get minted, driving the price up?
Or is this just a battle between neuron holder versus nodes?
Not exactly your question, but I thought id show some numbers to help, according to dashboard: https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/circulation
- Node provider rewards have been 200K ICP monthly last few months
- ICP rewards have been is around 1MM ICP per month last few months
This means voting is around 5x the impact of node providers, so node providers are not really a big share on inflation in my opinion.
Hi Diego,
Thank you for the link.
As regards the voting reward vs node reward. I see that sometimes one increase while the other decrease. Is it due to some kind of proposals that were voted to adjust. Or is there another reason/mechanism?
Sorry if those are newbie’s questions.
I had read a few months (or was it years ago), that the more nodes we add to the network, the more ICP will get minted ; and that the bets was that the chain will be so widely used, that tons of cycles will be burnt, and in fine, inflation could be 0, or even negative.
Was this “Node Reward inflation spiral” taken care of in the meantime? If so, yes, it’s only natural to now reduce the “Neuron’s rewards”.
1 Like