As the title of topic states, this is a proposal to initiate motion for developing a new feature on NNS front-end UI to allow users to submit proposals directly from the NNS Dapp.
The idea was inspired by Isaac’s NNS proposal submission dapp
Rationale: Will allow easy submission of proposal from the front-end dapp. Many proposals have been submitted through Isaac’s dapp, which shows that participants need an easier alternative to submit proposals without having to use CLI
That’s it. The ability to block or hide a user if they feel drawn as well. Hopefully, everyone would remain at the very least respectful when actually discussing a NNS proposal. We don’t all have to be best friends, but business is business. I don’t support this forum as a way to engage in governance topics anymore. Essentially, it is saying any feedback comments absolutely anything you say, post, create, or share is then owned by the foundation. That means the foundation owns every idea, proposal, almost the entire NNS by this standards. I think this could/ should be discussed more at the very least. It could be an issue.
That’s also the reason I don’t bother discussing anything here. No offense, this is an echo chamber. Only good thing to come out of this forum IMO is devs building and sharing tools.
That’s it. But even those tools and devs building/ sharing ideas should be careful sharing any of their ideas on this forum. Even in private messages the foundation would then outright own any proprietary rights to your product. If you say it on here it is no longer yours but is the foundations to choose what they want to do. If you share or give the wrong idea out, that idea is now the foundations and not yours and you agree to this by even say making this post, or my commenting and leaving this feedback lmao It’s just a useless echochamber. I thought it would be a useful way to engage with developers and the wider serious staking community and what I got was an ironic facade and unbelievable arrogance and feelings of superiority
Hey, well done. This is actually a useful post from you @CatPirate.
I agree with your suggestion and I think we have all wanted this for a long time. The DFINITY answer is likely to be that they have prioritized SNS or something like that, so I’m doubtful a proposal will move the needle on implementation. However, it has never been brought to the formal proposal stage, so maybe that is something worthwhile.
I think the NNS dApp implementation should include several stages. The first is initial proposal with requirement to deliberate for a min time period (e.g. 7 days). Then give the proposer an opportunity to revise the proposal into the final details before voting begins.
Using a staged approach, we could also implement a “table the proposal” feature that can be used as a spam filter. If someone moves to table the proposal during deliberation, then a vote occurs and it will not move forward if the motion to table the proposal is approved.
There could also be a crowdfund requirement before the formal proposal is submitted such that each proposal is supported by more than one person.
My personal take is that they use standard T&C language so DFINITY can take down anything someone posts that reasonable people would agree should be removed and to protect whatever intellectual property rights they legally own. I’ve seen a lot of questionable stuff posted on the forum that has stayed up. I think the actual implementation of the rules is reasonably fair. Nonetheless, I still support the idea of this original post that submitting proposals should be built into the NNS dApp and I would assume that means a different set of T&C would apply, if any.
Damn it, I just echoed what @CatPirate said to start this forum topic. Where is my original thought? Here comes the self writing meme…
This is what an Echo chamber is @wpb just in case you did not know…
Also, again I’d like to say I do not use twitter, telegram, fb, snap whatever, i don’t tik the tok
I use WEB 3 products hosted on the IC more specifically Distrikt because the Distrikt team is the only one who actually takes time to get to know their investors and users. I do not want to use a censored forum.
I suggested we make a separate forum to discuss governance. NOT poke fun at people about memes and what have you (ahem @wpb) I will not use DSCVR to do this.
We need a forum where our ideas stay ours, our data stays ours, we control the proprietary rights to our own ideas and thoughts. Nothing we say or do that gets put into the NNS right now is ours. EVERYTHING is the foundations. You don’t own anything. Kinda feel like maybe this is why greyscale turned the ICP token down… Do we not own anything we build or develop on the IC? is it all just the foundations by legality? If so, how does this mean we own anything even on projects hosted on the IC?
Then it makes sense why some continue to think the foundation is a sham. It’s like okay, we own everything UNLESS we say it here, develop it off grant funding, So, really we might not own anything all of your hardwork was work done for free and then is now a product of the foundation. We all have been giving away free labor to the foundation (by these definitions). If you want a true image of what the community wants you have to let them actually own their ideas. I was all for sharing my ideas personally, then I spent hours reading the fine print and I see why people in the space refuse to share their opinions or even give suggestions. Why would anyone want to continue to give suggestions like @wpb mentions, when if they do so they no longer are the ones who own the idea. It’s exploitation with no compensation.
And the foundation has been nothing but unappreciative and has ignored other builders. Important to note that ICPMN ( now synapse ) has three employees of DFINITY as their voting members. Surely nothing to see here folks, just very very very decentralized governance lmao. If you would just go to DFINITY’s twitter, its filled with ICPMN members circle-jerking.
I deleted Twitter and ONLY use Distrikt, because well the whole point of making these beautiful creations is to LEAVE POINTLESS TROLL FARMS LIKE TWITTER and use the applications designed and hosted on the IC/ web 3. Therefore, I have to turn that suggestion down. I 100% refuse to join twitter among many others and give them my data. It kinda doesn’t make sense to me why everyone has the ability to leave and take control over their data like the IC’s mission statement, but because they are rewarded by a following or base they continue to exploit themselves. Why? How can we develop projects then not even actively use them ourselves but ONLY continue to use and force users to use web 2 platforms in order to stay up to date. How can no one else see this as a huge issue?
I will not give my upmost attention to the forum or any of my heart filled suggestions until I know they are if anything owned by the community and not the foundation. THIS is where I agree transparency within the foundation is going to help foster/ facilitate the growth of the project. However, it is also where I see you will only create echo chambers until you create a web 3 product where there is no “cloud fare” built 100% on chain like Distrikt. Then give the users what they want and what the who flipping mission statement of Dfinity is. Give us our flipping rights back to our own data, content, ideas, thoughts, and opinions. AND STOP trying to force us to use the same products you want us to leave.
In case you forgot my suggestions on the tokenomics Sh#tshow you and dfinity created, I could remind you again. In fact, I’d be happy to spend my whole day tomorrow writing a big summary of it.
“It all started when NNS participants began siphoning the rewards from unaware users…” would be something like this.
Somehow clicking yes or no mindlessly on a proposal made these people eligible to siphon rewards
