Hi all,
I think many good points are made in this thread.
Therefore, I just focus on some thoughts that I had:
-
Re: renewing the followers, I think one thing to consider is also the security. IIRC, then currently one needs a neuron’s controller key to change the followees. For neurons with a lot of staked tokens, this might be a key that neuron holders want to keep in a very save place. It might thus be a lot of effort, and a security risk, having to get this key out as often as every 3 months.
Of course there are options here, such as allowing a hotkey to change the followees, but this should also be considered carefully, as then the loss of a hot_key would mean that the followees can be changed / removed, which might result in a considerable loss of rewards. -
I also think that the proposal to pause following until the end of a voting period should tackle most concerns of the original point 2 and is likely easier than reverting votes. In particular, neuron holders could then already see how a followee voted without the following having kicked in and could change their vote if they don’t like this choice. The problem seems to remain for followees who cast their vote very late. But I would argue that if a neuron cares for the outcome, it could also decide to directly vote not only when it sees that it disagrees with the followee’s choice, but also when it sees that the followee has not cast a vote close to the voting deadline (in that case the followee could also be considered as “not being a good/reliable neuron to follow”).
-
I am not sure if you have concerns on top of that with voters voting close to the voting period’s end. As pointed out, the wait-for-quiet should protect against some of this by increasing the voting period if the voting trend changes. But I do think it is good to think about these different relevant scenarios, also in the context of this proposal, e.g., when we define whether wait-for-quiet should be considered with respect to the “projected” or “current” voting result.