@Thyassa it’s nice to see you and Adam creating a known neuron. I think you will be great additions to the known neuron list.
What is the reason that the payload of the proposal doesn’t match the title of the proposal? You are not registering neuron ID ‘10113435617292303472’ as indicated in the title, which is Adam’s neuron that he has been using to submit many proposals recently. The payload registers neuron ‘12977943926061800402’. Hence, this proposal is inaccurate in the current form.
Do you want folks to reject so you can correct the registration with a follow up proposal? If not, then why would you submit a proposal with misleading information? What is the actual relationship between these two neurons?
@Lorimer typically you are a stickler to good form on proposals. Why would you be willing to accept a proposal that has a title that says one thing and then a payload that says something else? What’s wrong with rejecting this proposal and then letting Adam submit it again with the accurate information? This proposal will dictate what gets displayed on the dashboard and will forever have inaccurate content if it is adopted.
I agree, especially with the large number of people who have recently have issues with following / receiving rewards. It should be more clear how this works.
IMO there should be standards for known neurons voting participation in order to stay listed as known neurons. I.E. if a known neuron stops voting for X # of days, or misses X% of votes in a given time period they should be delisted.
@Severin@Ang@samuelburri will you please fix these AI auto hide features? It’s very frustrating to post on the forum these days when so much is hidden that doesn’t need to be hidden. There is nothing wrong with my post above. It shouldn’t warrant auto hide.
Yeah you just need to have ONE followee that doesn’t vote to screw your vote in case of 50/50 . Exactly what I say first comment. We need to give a followee a bit more power
The payload is indeed aligned with the announcement. It’s the payload that’s used when this proposal executes, not the title. The neuron in the title also verifiably belongs to the proposer (it’s the neuron that was used to propose the known neuron). I basically don’t see the issue you’re wanting to protect against.
If you’d like me to point you to proposals submitted by DFINITY that accidentally get things wrong in the proposal summary or title, and yet I’ve adopted anyway (as long as the issue has been flagged and there aren’t any significant ramifications) then I will.
Different standards are applied to different types of proposals based on their criticality and the potential for dangerous attack vectors.
