Thank you for your answer and your action.
To be clear, you look like a passionate person, and I respect this a lot. There is no doubt about the fact that you are opening an interesting field of governance questions, and thank you for this.
1 Like
Thank you I appreciate that. Any brash wording comes from a place of passion for making governance work right on the IC.
I appreciate the work ICPMN members have put and keep putting in even when not getting much for it.
3 Likes
I hope your vote will pass. I will follow you for the governance voting. If you say you will vote on all governance, I will change my setting to follow your neuron right away.
I do not agree with @wpb that a protest vote does not bring anything to IC. Critics are important (crucial) to make the system better. I know by experience.
Also, seems that some people will reject your neuron name because you donât think like them. In some other thread, I have seen questions on about the person have voted before. This is totally irrelevant.
You should not have to beg to have your named neuron as there would always have some people that may think like you.
If @cryptoisgood has been voted positive while saying he was going to vote like always⌠in a sluggish way, I would not understand that your would get voted out because of your conviction.
I was also very surprised that some people have already disclosed that they would vote No right here. is this to influence the vote?
Sad to see this. TMO it is not how the NNS will evolve the right way.
I used to vote manually on all governance proposal. I was spending lots of time reading and trying to understand all impacts of all governance proposals. After having seen the proposal to evade the TAX, wich have no benefit to IC and is against the Dfinity own guide, and after have seen the proposal (forgot the number) about resetting all following every 6 months to clean up the NNS (get the dead people out of voting) that was massively passed and Dfinity donât implement with some very weak excuses, I now follow to get paid and do passive staking as I find it does not worth my time.
So at least, my following to your neuron would have some sort of meaning now.
How can you help decentralization if you accept only named neuron that think like you and vote like you? Just not making any sense to me.
Thank you for submitting this request and hope you will pass.
3 Likes
Their main issue is that OP is anonymous. Iâm a very active member of the community and everyone knows who I am. Maybe a lot of people looked past my proposal and into the person who is submitting it. That said I got plenty of rejections.
That wasnât my intended message. I have no issue with protest voting.
I low key have issue with protest voting. It could bring dfinity to a halt if it has more power than dfinity neuron. What if they canât run their operations?
1 Like
I didnât know that being known and active on social media was a rule to be named neuron? Where does that new thing comes from?
Is there a new named neuron guide that I am not aware of?
Does privacy only apply to transactions now?
This is exactly what I am saying. Impossible to follow the logic.
@levi is active on this forum. He was voted out couple of months ago for a named neuron while being very serious and knowledgable in the programming. People were asking him how he voted in the past and, although I can be very wrong, looks like he was rejected for his conviction. If this was the case, it is very bad.
Is it better to have 20 named neurons that think the same way and follow each other or have 5 that have different views and convictions?
Where is the logic? I just donât get it and this is why I am all in for the protest neuron to help the NNS governance to grow in a better way.
Personally, I am against sluggish voting but I am happy that @cryptoisgood a named neuron so people who like this way to vote can follow him.
3 Likes
While I see the value in this I do have a few thoughts as this would be the first named neuron that is set to vote programmatically using an external code base.
-
I donât understand why voting every two hours is feasible but 24, 48, or even 70 hours is not. Technically speaking this should not be an issue. Iâd like to see this ironed out.
-
Naturally the reliability of the voting mechanism will be proven over time for all to see. However, your language leads me to believe even you are not certain enough to let this run with your hands off yet. Why not wait a month and properly track progress before deploying too prod. I donât see a super urgent need for this functionality that it canât wait.
-
I understand from a cost perspective why youâre using AWS but injecting your seed into a lamba function sends the wrong message about what is and is not best practice. I donât think you would have any issues receiving donations for cycles (even directly to the canister).
What is the ideal solution?
Bottom line is I donât dislike this idea, but it does not feel ready. This is what I would like to see before you submit a proposal to add as a named neuron:
- Neuron controlled by a blackholed canister in which all logic is processed (youâll need HTTP requests and ECDSAt signatures)
- Reject vote to occur only at the end of the voting period (or after significant amount of time from start)
- Significantly more voting history to prove reliability of the programatic voting.
- Code review/audit of the automation canister performed by established developers from the ecosystem.
Youâve clearly put a lot of work into this already and have a solid understanding of how governance works on the internet computer. I would love to hear your thoughts on the above.
2 Likes
I would argue that if a protest neuron can garner more voting power than the DFINITY Foundation & the ICA - there is probably an issue worth halting operations to protest.
Simultaneously, I donât thinking lumping âstagnantâ voting power & âprotestingâ voting power together is the right way to go about it, as it leads to a conflict of interests for the followee (Iâm aware OP has a program to vote no, but it brings up some questions). Naturally, âprotestingâ voting power will have less regard for the short-term well-being of the NNS, as theyâre discontent with something thatâs happening. This is most likely not the case for stagnant voting power, in fact, itâs probable to assume that theyâre simply trying to optimize rewards through following a neuron.
Optimally, Iâd like to see this split into two seperate neurons; one targeted at representing the best interests of stagnant voting power, and another that is dedicated solely to protesting by voting no.
@cryptoisgood @Accumulating.icp
The scenario of gaining more than 50% seems so unrealistic to me that itâs 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.
Iâm personally wouldnât 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 doesnât 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 donât think having it not fully trustless from the start is a major problem because any yes vote wouldnât hold any weight from a neuron called Always Reject. Iâm not looking for power as their is no power with such a neuron. So Iâm 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 donât have the time. Iâm already a bit demotivated at this point as it is far from clear whether it would pass with this additional effort .
4 Likes
Donât be. You are clearly dedicated and processing something important at least for you and probably more. To me, it is far from clear that it would not pass. Thank you for this wide and brand new field of thought you submitted to everybody.
Be aware that I would vote in favor of it.
4 Likes
First off donât be de-motivated. Personally I would vote in favor of this as it is now. I was simply providing some feedback on possible areas of improvement.
All in all great work.
3 Likes
Thank you for engaging in the deliberation on your proposal. I am becoming much more comfortable with your new anonymous identity because it is clear that you are an active participant in the IC ecosystem and governance discussions. I also appreciate how thorough you have been in scoping your plans and providing the justification. It has quickly elevated your credibility. I think you are addressing my two biggest concerns by changing the neuron name and by letting the community get to know you through this deliberation.
I think you are right that there is no credible scenario right now because all protocol changes happen in proposal topics that fall under All Topics Except Governance. However, my concern in bullet point 5 above was in reference to the day that individual topics are removed from All Topics since there will likely be far less total voting power casting votes until neuron owners are incentivized to select a Followee for that proposal topic (and since DFINITY voting power is going down daily). I recognize that your rebuttal was that we have no idea how proposal topics will be decentralized. However, Iâd prefer to plan for it happening the same way that Governance was partially decentralized. There have not been any other ideas that have surfaced on how to decentralize individual proposal topics and it seems likely that they will follow the same model as Governance. Working with that assumption, can you programmatically stop voting NO to proposals when that proposal topic no longer falls into the All Topics Except Governance catch all category? Can you routinely scan the NNS code and look for the proposal topics that are included with All Topics? If the proposal topic is removed, would you be willing to change your automated action so you no longer vote NO on protocol changes? It would be helpful to know that your open source code has this feature.
1 Like
I see so an example of your concern is:
- DFINITY removes the Network Economics Proposal topic from All topics besides Governance
- A much smaller pecentage is voting on this now
- Such a small percentage that Always Rejects now blocks any proposal
Honestly I would be wildly against such a thing happening. Doing this with motion proposals that donât affect anything is one thing. Doing it with a topic that actually affect the protocol in such a way that this scenario seems even somewhat likely is bananas. I would be happy to be a detractor to such an idea.
I think everybody is far too eager to make changes to the NNS that affect staking or the way voting works. In any proper democracy there are checks and balances so that you canât just affect the way the governance system works with a simple majority. Doing what you are suggesting should never be done in a way were people who were following the foundation are unfollowed.
3 Likes
I donât think blindly rejecting every proposal is constructive for governance, so Iâm not in favor of this as a known neuron and will vote to reject.
2 Likes
I like the idea, good lateral thinking, so I will vote to accept, though not sure I will follow. The conversation does bring up the fact that established named neurons now have some interest in blocking other named neurons to the extent that they are competitors for followers.
Perhaps we need a separate named neuron vote category which is reward-free, so nobody loses for not voting on it, but also accepts only individual votes rather than automatic ones. That will prevent block voting and level the playing field a little.
2 Likes
If I assume the best case scenario, stakeholders would only follow this neuron when theyâve lost faith in the network. This could be an interesting way to gauge sentiment. It would be interesting to see how quickly this neuron gains or loses VP over time.
2 Likes
Is the neuron from this post How to create a decentralized community neuron still available? I would love to just use that one instead of going through all those steps.
3 Likes
I will update the script to only vote at the end of a voting period before making my proposal so everybody can vote manually.
2 Likes
Indeed, no one has claimed that neuron so far.
TBH I am not entirely sure about the gains from having this decentralized setup for your proposed neuron:
- The decentralized setup primarily makes sense if your organization consists of multiple people and you want to make changes to the setup of the neuron by threshold voting. If you control this neuron through a single other neuron, there is really no advantage in doing so.
- If your neuron votes automatically through a script on AWS, then the voting (which seems to be the important part here) is centralized anyway, even if you had multiple people controlling the neuron.
To me, this seems to be a case where the ârightâ setup seems to be:
- Have a canister control the neuron.
- Instead of hosting the script on AWS, build the same functionality in that canister.
- Give up central control over your canister by (a) blackholing it, (b) putting it under DAO control, or (c) letting the canister control itself.
That said, if you think this is the proper setup for your neuron, I donât mind sending you the one I created. Just send me the id of the neuron that you want to control it with, and Iâll configure it so itâs from then on exclusively controlled by your neuron. (And you can then again change the setup so that itâs controlled by multiple independent neurons.)
Note that the NNS frontend dapp currently does not support neuron management proposals, so youâd need to be able to use your existing neuron from dfx or ic-repl in order to send management proposals.