@borovan and I are planning to submit a Known Neuron proposal to offer others a clear way to align with our voting principles.
We understand that not everyone will agree with our positions, and that’s completely fine. Our goal is to ensure there is sufficient choice among active voters for people to follow, which is why we’re putting our names out there.
For those who don’t know us, here’s some information:
We Are Investors
We have been involved in the Internet Computer since genesis, as part of the initial seed round. We deeply believe in the technology behind the Internet Computer and are committed to doing everything we can to support its success.
Since the launch of the SNS framework, we have invested significant funds into most of the projects and continue to actively engage with the teams behind them (aside from the ones that were, admittedly, hard lessons for us all!).
We Are Builders
We are actively developing multiple projects, including:
ICU – https://github.com/dragginzgame/icu
An open-source set of utilities and macros to coordinate multiple canisters (smart contracts) working together. ICU helps developers build complex, scalable canister-based dapps that operate across canister boundaries—even across subnets.
Toko
An NFT maker and marketplace aiming to revolutionize how NFTs are defined and used.
We Always Vote
Our voting history and power have been a hot topic on the forums recently. What should be clear is that we pay close attention to proposals and are active participants in the future development of the Internet Computer.
About Our Neuron
We plan to use our newly set-up Canister-Controlled Neuron as our named neuron:
I would gladly follow your neuron on my list if that would make sure it doesn’t conflict with existing follows I have. Issue is : if we get to 50% yes and 50% no, the neuron won’t vote and I wouldn’t accept this. I just mention this if there is anything you could do.
Hopefully someday we can give a leader follow to the list so that we never end with a 50/50
Few other changes that I believe are needed :
we still can’t change casted vote on proposal before the vote is finalized. So if you vote something by mistake / change your mind / don’t want to vote the same thing as the guy you follow. You are screwed.
we still cant change named neuron description and stuff to make it more interactive and adapted. We could also have an interface to justify the votes.
Anyway, happy to see you actively participating on voting !
So who actually owns that neuron, is it personal or project owned neuron. If its personal, than why not use Borovan 8% VP neuron?
Not really understand why there is a need to show more high VP neurons voting when actually 1 person is controlling their votes. It reminds me similar thing when Borovan started to hide what tokens he bought and staked tokens with hidden wallets, basically its like splitting VP.
Everyone still should vote manually, small staked amounts probably dont care.
Yup, I agree with you creating your own known neuron and doing things the right way. So congrats on taking these steps to become active community members in the governance portion of the network.
Is this specific to canister controlled neurons? I never thought about how it works if you follow two people who effectively cancel each other out.
I know there will be increased effort to make proposals and voting in general clearer to all.
There would have to be some limits in place for changing your vote after the person you follow casts their vote, max # times, min period before the voting ends etc. otherwise it could get crazy. Not sure about the technical calculations behind it. Sounds like an interesting topic to explore though…
This is not true if the Followee framework (built into all neurons) is being used to trigger the vote. If you have two Followees set up for a topic and 1 votes Yes and the other votes No, then your neuron will vote No.
Followee voting occurs according to the following framework…
If greater than 50% of your Followees vote to Adopt, then your neuron will vote to Adopt.
If greater than or equal to 50% of your Followees vote to Reject, then your neuron will vote to Reject.
Otherwise, your neuron will abstain.
This is how Followee voting has worked since genesis.
LOL. Did you read your AI sourced content? It describes the exact same conditional statements that I provided and then draws an illogical conclusion based on those conditions. Anyway, I’m not concerned who you choose to believe. I’m more interested in making sure other people get an accurate explanation of how it works instead of being misled. I’ve been managing neurons such as Synapse and CodeGov that require an understanding of how Followee voting works for 4 years now, so I’m quite well versed in the details. Perhaps someone like @aterga would be willing to confirm the details.
