If I submit 0 governance proposals then governance rewards make up 0% of rewards for the day.
If I submit 1 governance proposal then governance rewards make up 75% of rewards for the day.
If I submit 50 proposals then governance rewards make up 99% of rewards for the day.
That’s the problem, clear and simple. Fix the rewards at 75% per day (which is more than enough to incentivize participation).
If there are 10 proposals in that day and you vote on 5/10, you miss out on 50% of the governance rewards you would have received if you had voted on all 10/10 proposals, and those missed rewards are distributed to those who did vote on those proposals.
I think the problem is pretty clear and has nothing to do with decentralization or default followees - see the code for yourself.
I would argue forced manual voting (no followees) incentivizes people to promote their idea and have enough people in the community excited about it that they will go out of their way to organically vote and support a proposal. Sure whales can influence a vote, but how is that any different than the current voting system? I think it’s more dangerous that a single neuron be able to weild influence for a vote than a whale (neurons yield way more voting power)
I know we disagree on this point, but if everyone is voting on all types of proposals then there is no reason to submit a spam proposal at all. It does not advantage a person to submit a spam proposal if there is no voter participation imbalance between Governance and All Topics Except Governance. The imbalance is artificial due to default Followees for All Topics.
The spam is caused by the fact that people make profits from proposals. As long as making a proposal more profitable then not making a proposal. Spam will be had.
Yes, I fully agree. IMO, there are two ways to eliminate this financial incentive for spam. Remove proposal weights or incentivize everyone to vote. The former eliminates spam and stagnates decentralization. The later eliminates spam while allowing future progress toward decentralization. I think the greater good is decentralization.
The spam proposals created more awareness and made me participate/pay attention to the NNS more.
Some are clearly gaming the system to earn more rewards. Now that I look at the increased cost to submit a proposals, it feels like we just added one more barrier to submit a proposal
We’d need to tweak stage 0 though to make it a type of sub-community that attracts the kind of regular users we want to have involved.
Personally, I think the whole NNS should use quadratic voting to help reduce the influence of whales. Anything that can be bought can be centralized, period.
For stage 0 the voting should be either quadratic if not 1-to-1 to enforce a level playing field. Of course, this would make proof-of-humanity even more critical, but any well designed Governance system will need to solve that issue so it’s hardly unique to this approach.
Then, one interesting thing to try might be blind voting with both rewards and penalties. No one can see the running tally of votes during stage 0 until a resolution is determined by the system on whether it moves to stage 1, and then from there things work like normal and the NNS determines an outcome. If during stage 0 you voted with the final outcome (for example if you voted to approve the proposal and it ultimately passed all stages) you get a bonus neuron reward, but if you voted against the final outcome (a vote against a proposal which gets approved or vice versa) then a small penalty is applied against your neuron rewards (you lose some current or future maturity).
Basically, this would make stage 0 a higher risk/reward playground for nerds who are interesting in being active in the nitty gritty NNS operations, and it’ll require everyone who contributes to bringing a proposal up for full attention to have some skin in the game. Incentivizing voting is important, but at some point it’s good to also penalize thoughtless and careless voting. It may make sense to do that at stage 0.
What I hope we can all start to agree on is a multi-stage process. I think it should start simple, but with a multi-stage process we could start to experiment with different voting mechanisms in a scoped way, without changing the final NNS process that is currently functioning to some extent.
One technical detail left out of this proposal is if one’s vote on a stage 0 proposal should apply to stage 1 if the proposal passes stage 0.
From a user experience/educational perspective, I think it’s important that if this change is made the NNS includes “i” (informational) tooltips or links specific to the new voting and rewards mechanisms in place. We want voters to understand what their voting responsibilities are, and don’t want voters feeling like potential rewards opportunities are being hidden from them.
I think there’s decent community support for this proposal, but we should now move to flushing out the UX a tad more before submission. That extra will give the community a week or so more to digest the new mechanisms and think about edge cases.
spam/junk proposal will be rejected and proposer lose 1 ICP since there won’t be any reward. Since all the previous spam proposals are rejected , is safe to say that spam proposal can never pass stage 0 .
very good point , i wouldn’t want to keep voting . if it pass … it shouldn’t even need to go stage 1 … all votes should be awarded automatically and start to implement the proposal
I really like this idea, however I think the community is focused on it for the wrong perspective.
The conversation in the forum has focused on this idea as a spam prevention tool. I think that’s short sighted and focused on putting out current fires.
However, this idea has a lot of potential to improve the long term ability for the NNS community to make good decisions. It does this by:
Reducing the amount of noise by limiting the number of proposals that reach mainstream voting.
Mandates a 2-week deliberation time. This should give the community an opportunity to discuss (although ideally the community would have had a chance to discuss prior).
Ultimately a multi-step process for governance proposal (or eventually a multi-branched process) is needed for the NNS to be more disciplined in decision making. I think this is a good first step.
I think this might be a good long-term solution for the current spam problem. I’m trying to think of ways this can be abused, but I don’t see many. The only that comes to mind if whales see a stage 0 spam governance proposal they might try to accept it into stage 1 in order to get the reward. One would hope there is more honest active voting which would be enough to reject all (or most) of these at stage 0.
Can we try to get some agreement on the simplest possible multi-stage setup? Perhaps we can launch with some simple parameters and change them after we can observe for a period of time. Here’s what I suggest:
Stage 0 proposal rules:
Rejection cost of 1 ICP
Threshold for adoption of 1% (same mechanisms for adoption/rejection as other proposals, just a different threshold)
Lifetime of 2 weeks (proposals cannot pass before this time, if not passed by the end of the lifetime the proposal is automatically rejected)
No affect on voting rewards
UI doesn’t change besides removing the option to filter the Governance topic, and having two new topics called Governance Stage 0 and Governance Stage 1
After the lifetime, if the proposal has been adopted then a stage 1 proposal with the exact same information will automatically be created
If a proposal moves from stage 0 to stage 1, then all voting should start over. There are too many reasons why a person would choose yes for stage 0 to push a proposal to stage 1, but wouldn’t want it to pass stage 1.
But this would mean that no rejected proposals would give voting rewards (if rejected in stage 0). Since a lot of regular non-spam proposals also get rejected, wouldn’t this change reward distributions?
Maybe in stage 0 we can just vote spam / not spam, or rewording it somehow that we vote the proposal to be brought to stage 1 where it still might get rejected. In this way I might vote “yes” on a legitimate proposal that I disagree with just to later on in stage 1 vote “reject”.