I will vote no to the this proposal for the following reasons:
- the neuron name is designed to attract passive voters who do no research, yet the neuron intent is not aligned with the long term best interest of the IC. I find the name to be misleading.
- a strategic intent of this neuron is to attract disgruntled seed investors. There could be a lot of voting power associated with these neurons if this strategy is successful.
- it will be easy for people to think they are making a smart decision by following two neurons…a public neuron they trust AND the Always Votes neuron. A neuron configured this way will indeed always vote NO regardless of how their other trusted neuron votes.
- there is nothing preventing the owner of Always Votes from voting NO immediately after a proposal is submitted to the NNS (within minutes or seconds) due to the programmatic intent of how this neuron voting will work. Once the Always Votes neuron vote is cast it will be impossible for followers to vote manually because their neuron will have already voted.
- In the future, it will be necessary for individual proposal topics to be separated from the All Topics category in order to achieve decentralization. I think disgruntled seed investors and new people who have no interest in anything except following a neuron that will “Always Vote” are the most likely people to configure every single proposal topic to follow Always Votes. If this happens, then the Always Votes neuron will have pre-populated large voting power (relative to others) on proposal topics that change the protocol as we move toward decentralization. I see this as a potentially major security risk to the IC.
While I would very much like there to be a lot of choices in the NNS dApp, this Always Votes proposal seems like too much risk.