@cryptoisgood @Accumulating.icp
The scenario of gaining more than 50% seems so unrealistic to me that it’s not really relevant. The foundation controls pretty much 100% of the voting power on other proposals. The most contested recent proposal like the community fund had only like 25% of the voting power. Big investors are really not going to follow to this neuron they are better off sending an email.
In the FAQ I mention waiting till the end of the voting period is possible and that I want to go in that direction. Absolutely fine with only making the named neuron proposal only when that is the case.
Fine with waiting for a bigger voting history as well. Note that there is only 100 of ballots saved on the neuron though. To verify a bigger history we will need a third party to make screenshots or the dashboard or something for the ones that got deleted.
/// The maximum number of recent ballots to keep, per neuron.
pub const MAX_NEURON_RECENT_BALLOTS: usize = 100;
The question is would any credible devs like you be willing to put in the effort of verifying this code? I would be happy to collaborate in a public repo but this takes time and effort and we would need to await those features.
I’m personally wouldn’t like to wait for outgoing http request, threshold EDSA and the writing of that complicated code. I would also rather have neurons just be owned by canisters if people are willing to go through alternative hoops. Proposal: Remove the is_self_authenticating restriction on Neuron Ownership - #23 by domwoe
I personally feel like there is a hurry because the fact the foundation doesn’t seem to take it like a signal at all that some of these proposals like maturity modulation or Community Fund that get rejected by all community neurons and barely make it and are still being pushed through. I would like for this neuron to exist before there is another contentious proposal.
I just scanned the forum a bit and we could also create a neuron like this:
Then have the following setup
Have you me and another trusted community dev setup a 2 out of 3 following relation for the manage neuron topic and have it follow my proxy neuron with the lambda function.
This way we would have checks and balances where the most important base neuron would be controlled by established community devs. The proxy neuron would be controlled by me and the lambda function. And we would have a roadmap towards fully trustless in the feature by adding a hotkey to a canister later.
I really don’t think having it not fully trustless from the start is a major problem because any yes vote wouldn’t hold any weight from a neuron called Always Reject. I’m not looking for power as their is no power with such a neuron. So I’m happy to hand over control to more established devs so I can stay anonymous.
If you would be willing to work together on this that would be fantastic, but I can imagine you don’t have the time. I’m already a bit demotivated at this point as it is far from clear whether it would pass with this additional effort .