I think the following summarizes my thoughts on this subject. And Iāll note that I donāt want this to take away from the very cool technical accomplishment of IDGeek. This tech(and tecdsa and/or subnet signed based neurons coming soon) was inevitable and these conversations are just part of the healthy evolution of the IC. Also, there are very likely ways to sell IIs that keeps the neurons from being part of that equation.
Copied from my tweet here: https://twitter.com/afat/status/1651993585280073728
I had to sleep on this to come up with a better example. I think there are a couple that Iāll try to lay out now.
In the US, you have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to a trial by jury. This creates an imbalance where, generally, you canāt keep someone in jail while the state builds its case.
The system in place to deal with this is the ābail bondā system, which aims to ensure that citizens maintain their rights while the state upholds the rule of law.
This bail bond is a ādemand contract.ā It requires that a specific person appear on a designated date to stand trial if they want their cash back. When SBF posts a $250,000,000 bond to guarantee his court appearance, the state holds those funds in escrow. If Gary Gensler shows up on the trial date and says āsorry, I paid my buddy SBF $125M, and Iām here to stand in his place, please return his bond to me,ā the state will refuse, explaining that he fundamentally misunderstands the justice system and then confiscate the $250M bond. Allowing someone else to face judgment breaks the system of rule of law and promotes lawlessness, resulting in a worse society than would exist if justice were upheld. Laws arenāt a sufficient deterrent to lawlessness if you can pay someone to take the heat for you.
Furthermore, this bail money isnāt meant to compensate for the lack of justice if SBF doesnāt show up. Although it may help mitigate the consequences, itās ultimately a different currency, and the result is a less just system than if the offender were held accountable or exonerated. This situation creates a tragedy of the commons, and the proverbial cup is not as full as it could have been. There is less justice because the subject has bypassed the system.
A NNS neuron is a form of demand contract, similar to a bail bond. The difference is that your actions (or hopefully productive governance) wonāt be judged until the end of your staking contract. The contract exists to provide security to those using, investing in, and building on the platform. You indebt yourself to the platform, and it agrees to pay you maturity for your votes as long as you stand trial at the end and face the consequences of your performance. The market conducts this trial, rewarding you if the value of your bond increased and punishing you if it decreased.
If someone else appears for the trial, it breaks the social contract in place. Specifically, the NNS is willing to pay you for coordinating with the network under the assumption of the bond contract.
This security is a commons owned by the network as a public good. An individual trying to privatize personal gain from the commons at the expense of the commons is generally considered to be committing a crime.
You canāt dump toxic waste in the sewer, claim personal sovereignty, profit, and expect a functioning ecosystem in the future.
If you believe itās acceptable for Alice to pay Bob to dump her toxic waste in the sewer and that itās just ātwo individuals trading toxic waste,ā then we have fundamentally different philosophical viewpoints on the commons and public goods. A few people doing this can disrupt the entire ecosystemā¦they donāt have to singlehandedly have the ability to induce a terminal velocity toward complete environmental destruction for it to be bad for everyone.
On the Internet Computer, the NNS has been granted a monopoly on computational and financial authority over the platform participants. This arrangement has its drawbacks, especially as Andrea points out, the distribution of voting power isnāt exactly egalitarian at this point. Additionally, we donāt have a judicial system in place to protect a set of ārightsā against potential mob overreach. Itās evident that we have a long way to go in terms of governance mechanisms. While these are separate debates, they are worth having (or revisiting) at some point. However, the lack of a comprehensive system shouldnāt cause us to compromise on network security or stand by while individuals try to privatize the very thing that makes the whole system work for personal gain. This approach is a recipe for a toxic ecosystem.
Possible solutions (the right solution may exist at some intersection of these, but they are gradients, not absolutes) include:
-
Use proof of personhood to constantly sign the bond and/or quarantine voting power if the person doesnāt provide zero-knowledge proof that they are the original staker upon each vote or follower designation.
-
Force everyone to auto-stake maturity so that they canāt benefit financially until the trial date (a non-starter if we want to attract stakers until the system has enough utility for governance to have its own intrinsic value).
-
Attempt to track and quarantine neurons (the worst solution, as Andrea has pointed out, this unfairly benefits elites who can hide their activity).
-
Voluntary quarantine for an agreed-upon period and then allow a sale (suggested by coolpineapple).
-
Explore other potential solutions collaboratively.
Iām not looking for anyone to provide a cure-all todayā¦as @accumulatingicp has mentioned, we have āsomeā time before we might be in a place where brutal damage could be inflicted from this. But I do think we should get to a place where we can agree that there are dangers here, including death by 1000 cuts, that we should be proactive about discussing and planning for.
