Are you sure this is really going to be an incentive for spam? It still seems unlikely to me with the current Governance proposal weight of 1x. What was the equivalent analysis of financial incentive for spam when the Governance proposal weight was 20x? Would it be accurate to say 68,178/20 = 3409 was the ICP required to offset the proposal reject fee on the weekends pre new exchange rate? That’s a lot lower than 17,572.
If we see spam, then a proposal reject fee of 38.8 ICP would be equivalent disincentive to spam compared to what exists pre new exchange rate. Instead of going straight to that proposal reject fee, it could be slowly increased until the spam stops. We could even advertise that spam will cause an increase in proposal reject fee so any donors to a spam funding campaign know up front that their financial analysis of the spam opportunity will change during the spam campaign. That seems like a deterrent as well. I would be willing to submit proposals to increase the proposal reject fee to avoid more spam.
People submitting register known neuron proposals is also a disincentive to spam because they are legit Governance proposals. There have been a lot of them lately and I see no reason why the community shouldn’t continue encouraging registration. In fact, I’d be willing to offer my services for submitting these proposals for anyone who is not comfortable with DFX command line yet still have an interest in participating in governance at a higher level.
My main concern is rushing into a spam prevention solution that goes beyond the tools that are already built into the NNS and what has already been deliberated and voted. I know DFINITY has been working on this exchange rate change, but I’m not aware that any activity has been occurring on spam prevention solutions. Hence, coordinating exchange rate change with spam prevention seems rushed on the spam prevention side. Perhaps activity has been in progress that hasn’t been released publicly yet. In that case, I’d love to hear more about the plans.