Maximize governance proposal weight: Reverse thinking

Who are the strongest supporters of ICP in the long term? Undoubtedly, the 8-year gang, i.e., those who are staking ICP for 8 years, always compounding, and never dissolving. If you are staking for 8 years but also dissolving or not compounding, you are not a real member of the 8-year gang. (Of course, you can sell some rewards for some reason someday in the distant future, but definitely not now.)

The 8-year gang are the night watchmen of ICP.
To maximize the interests of the 8-year gang is to maximize the interests of ICP.

While the price of ICP is going from 2800 to 12 right now (see Binance), you guys are still caring about spam proposals so much? You guys must be kidding me.

You guys know how to stop those spam proposals? Let @wpb submit enough “good” spam proposals so that any additional spam proposals cannot increase voting rewards anymore. That’s it.

You guys know what is really the most dangerous thing to ICP? The 8-year gang losing the majority of voting power. Hence the most important thing is to strengthen the 8-year gang, which should be superior to and also an essential part of the must-be-a-long-way decentralization of ICP.

If everyone can fully realize the importance and the power of the 8-year gang, ICP will be inevitable.

Then how to strengthen the 8-year gang and how to maximize their interests? The answer is simple:

Maximization of governance proposal weight + Automatic compounding.

If those two conditions are both met, then any selling or dissolving or neuron spawning will increase the relative power of the 8-year gang, because, at least, they will literally increase the relative voting power of the 8-year gang. You may need some time to think this over.

Therefore, rather than reducing the governance proposal weight to 1, we should increase the governance proposal weight to a maximum level. Then let them sell, whether they are pessimistic seed investors or short-term speculators in crypto exchanges.

How much ICP do crypto exchanges have? Are crypto exchanges staking ICP and for how many years? The 8-year gang equipped with maximized voting rewards and automatic compounding can make crypto exchanges be much more in an ICP financial strain, since, I guess, crypto exchanges cannot very conveniently stake ICP for 8 years: at every moment there are more and more people withdrawing ICP from crypto exchanges and thus crypto exchanges may lose their relative voting power as long as the 8-year gang become stronger and stronger.

There are so many people short selling ICP in crypto exchanges even though they don’t have any ICP at all. A similar case for Tesla, as Elon Musk once complained: You can sell Tesla stocks even if you don’t have any Tesla stocks at all. Thus, the market price is not only about the demand and supply of spot goods; it is also about who are willing to buy and sell in the short term even if neither of them have any spot goods.

We cannot change the rules of crypto exchanges, but we can change the rules of NNS. If we do, then the 8-year gang can buy more and more ICP no matter what the price will be. If the 8-year gang can hold more and more ICP, then the “market” price determined in crypto exchanges will be forced up.

When the Bitcoin bear run is over and those pessimistic seed investors sell out their ICP (maybe after several years), the 8-year gang can then get up and focus more on other things to make the NNS perfect. But for now, we should focus more on making the NNS strong, not perfect.

If the voting rewards can be maximized and automatic compounding is completed, then I can even consider being all in ICP. If ICP is going to zero, I can buy all ICP. Too good to be true. No one can defeat the 8-year gang unless the 8-year gang can fuck themselves up.

Please change my mind.

(1) Maximizing governance proposal weight will increase the voting rewards of the 8-year gang, but will not increase the inflation of ICP.
(2) To be honest, I mostly prefer the set & forget strategy of passive investment as a member of the 8-year gang, but it seems impossible, as for now the majority really want to punish those neurons not voting and I cannot find an efficient way to change their mind.
(3) I believe that the proposal 48623 is adopted mainly because it realizes the function of automatic compounding, even if many people hate it for some other reasons. This also raises the problem of Bundling Proposal, which seems to be a common difficulty in all voting systems.

1 Like

It works like that already no? 8 years staking gang have the highest rewards.


No. It is only highest relative to other investors under given governance proposal weight. But it can still be increased if the governance proposal weight can be maximized, say, from 20 to 30 or higher.

Wouldn’t that create a monopoly with time because the voting power of an 8 year neuron will increase exponentially if it is merged?

Theoretically, it is possible, as long as it does not dissolve or spawn neurons. But if this is the case, why would this neuron do something bad to hurt itself? Of course, I see what you’re worried about, but I think the real danger is from seed investors or other large early investors. If the 8-year gang become stronger and stronger and the seed investors sell ICP more and more, then there will be less and less whale neurons.

The theme seems to always be the same.

Punish the followers and reward the unfollowers.

Now it’s the 8 year gangsters.

The default settings of the nns worked ok till the 8 year gangsters started interfering and made changes that created holes for non followers to exploit and at the same time blame the unfollowers to justify taking away their rewards.

Not Cool

You unfollowers and especially, you 8 years gangsters are getting out of control and are turning into thugs.

What was the spammed amount 60,000 icp, good job, 8 year gangsters.

Decentralized bf

You mean, the 8-year gang changed the default settings? I never know that, and if I can choose as a 8-year gangster, I like the default settings more. See my another thread: The Declaration of an ICP Hodler

In some sense, the 8-year gang are most related to the long-term interests of ICP, and thus it is reasonable to think as a 8-year gangster.

It’s hard to imagine what the blockchain world would be like if there are not so many enthusiastic bitcoin maximalists, who are somewhat annoying today from the perspective of many non-maximalists.

Likewise, if there are not enough ICP maximalists to support the development of ICP, it will be much harder to imagine the future of ICP.

Anyway, I can understand that being a cynical free-rider is always much easier and safer than being a risk-taking changer. I mean, if you have something to say, you should say it loudly and clearly rather than murmur against the 8-year gang without any details.

I am always happy and ready to change my mind, as long as you can convince me logically.

Of course, if you don’t have time to try to convince me, it will be always good for you to remind me that I might be wrong.

1 Like

Decentralized means everyone is the same and calling yourself a gang: an organized group of criminals means you separate yourself. I invested in ICP because of the ideal and my belief as a long term interest and decentralization but more and more I see groups forming and tearing down the longevity.

The enthusiasm seams to be about punishing followers but I would suggest that the followers know nothing of this forum and a button on the NNS for followers to be directed to this site maybe a solution to being more unfollowing.

I don’t believe people change, they may modify their behaviour for a while so I am not here to change you but I do speak out.

1 Like

Decentralization does not mean that everyone is the same; in my opinion, it just means that no single person or small group of people can control the whole system.

The 8-year gang is just a joke. You may lack a sense of humor.

As I said, I don’t like the idea of punishing those ICP holders who do not vote. But I do like your idea of directing newcomers to this forum site by adding a button on the NNS frontend.

I agree with you that people do not change. But I do change, and I always change, especially in recent years seeing what an absurd real world.

I like your comment with a smile and I also change by watching others on how not to behave.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I prefer to focus on increasing voter participation while simultaneously improving decentralization. I think the most important next step in governance is to resolve the imbalance between participation in Governance topics and participation in All Topics Except Governance, which will simultaneously resolve the issue with spam that is submitted for economic gain. This was the purpose of proposal 55651, which passed and hopefully will be implemented by Dfinity soon.

I prefer not to see any more spam at this point because I think the effect of proposal weights has already achieved max benefit for incentivizing increased voter participation given the default following that we have for All Topics until now. It won’t increase further until slightly more active participation is incentivized for All Topics Except Governance, which I expect in turn will result in more people learning that they need to configure Followees for Governance.

I think the community needs to focus on education of NNS participants on how to maximize voting rewards now and what is coming in the future. We need to be shouting the education messages from the rooftops trying to get people’s attention on the changes and how to stay active.

The proposal 55651, though highly adopted by voters, makes the NNS even more awkward. But I have to accept it; anyway, it is the community’s decision, even though both Dfinity and ICA also voted Yes.

To solve a problem, you just make a bigger problem: requiring all neuron owners to confirm their neuron Followee selections every 6 months? Seriously? That is so inelegant, even so silly.

If you hate @ysyms 's spam proposals, why don’t you just simply submit enough good spam proposals so that @ysyms does not need to submit any more bad spam proposals?

I think you missed the point that I really want to address. But that is fine; it must be that I didn’t make it clear enough.

I see these confirmations as a way to prevent dead people and lost account from voting and getting rewards forever. Would you have another solution to this?
What is the problem exactly to go in your account once per 6 months and make 1 click?
Why silly?
You probably have good reasons but I just cannot imagine any.

1 Like

To prevent dead people?


You guys must want to control everything in the world, otherwise you just cannot fall asleep, I guess.

Maybe you guys all need to listen more carefully.

Well, obviously, you have never read any of my previous post. If you would, you would never include me in Ë‹you guys" because I also have a lot of frustration about many things happening while I am locked for 8 years and have no way to get out.
So, I conclude that in your world, nobody ever die, seriously? No lost account ever, seriously? Ok, fine. No constructive discussion or idea is possible then.
Bring solution instead of only complaining.

1 Like

Sometimes, you can just let them go, especially dead people.
I am sorry that I have never read your previous posts.
I am just trying to make it more fun, and I really hope you don’t mind.

I would presume that when dead people die their estate is past on to another living person that will make the decisions. Ether way when rewards are paid out then they have nothing to do with me. The main problem for me is dealing with the living.

wouldn’t be surprised at the amount of dead people especially during this pandemic .

Fun thought , if you die tomorrow , you literally cannot pass it to your love ones if you didn’t teach them how to access your account and stuff . The ICP literally locked forever .

1 Like

When people were dead, they just help burn some ICP. That is it.

In some sense, if you are dead, why do you still care? What you are worrying about now is all about what you are now.
So, if you are dead someday without passing it to your loved ones, you just don’t care about them so much. If you do, you must have definitely told them where are your seed phrases.
As a mechanism designer, you must assume that everyone is rational, everyone knows that everyone is rational, everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone is rational, and so forth, that is, rationality is common knowledge.
But the IC community leaders just don’t think so.