Open Call for Proposals to Resolve Non-Actionable Proposals

The best resource for learning how to submit a proposal is this IC wiki:

You also need to see this DFX release note:

The wiki contains some suggestions on best practices for what to include in your proposal.

Regarding timeline…
Try to submit your proposal for deliberation on the forum between now and Apr 18. The goal is to submit the group proposals to the NNS on April 18 through Apr 25. The dates may change. The idea is to coordinate efforts within reason.

Kyle and I will make a few changes to our proposal and will post the revision early this week.

1 Like

Thanks Wenzel. I’ll try to get to work on it tomorrow.

Thanks for the topic, @wpb @Kyle_Langham.

I would like to put forward an idea. In the theme of biomimetics, I propose a type of spam detector that works by inhibiting governance proposals when certain conditions are met. I am still drafting it, but my thinking is something like this:

  1. Spam proposals should not be considered a normal part of any governance system.
  2. Reviewing all proposals burdens the network and can facilitate bias or surveillance.
  3. Biological neural networks do not monitor themselves, but instead rely on homeostasis to adapt to changing conditions or events, often using inhibitory processes [1].
  4. There should be a separate, parallel system that inhibits governance proposals, activated by reports of spam, that works to channel proposals away from public view and/or into a review process.
  5. This system of governance inhibition requires no changes to the existing governance system, is responsive down to a single neuron, and can be later adapted to defend against other types of attack.

I will make a new topic for this once it is ready and can do this by the 18th. I agree with @justmythoughts about a longer deliberation period and doing a sanity check with DFINTY before submitting the proposals. This is particularly true of this idea, as one clear disadvantage is the initial effort needed to get it running and it would be nice to know if this is a showstopper ahead of time.

[1] Balancing Act in the Brain: Excitatory and Inhibitory Activity – Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience


Awesome, thanks for your leadership Steve!

Thanks for your feedback!

Regarding timeline, I would be open to extending the 18APR-25APR proposal deliberation timeline if it will either (a) provide needed time for deliberation on new ideas or (b) if DFINITY expresses a desire to comment on some or all of the ideas prior to the voting period and has requested time to do so.

The one week deliberation time was chosen with the assumption that most ideas have already been deliberated the prior week, however there’s certainly no rush and I would hate to limit the deliberation of any idea that needs more time. I don’t want to extend it by months (unless there is a good reason to do so like point b above) because I don’t think that timeline will produce more value-add deliberation and I don’t want this topic to get stale. Certainly extending by a week or two is feasible.

I agree that it would be advantageous for DFINITY to comment prior to the voting period. I don’t want to force DFINITY to comment, particularly if they don’t want to sway the community’s deliberation or don’t want to invest the human resources on feasibility studies. I think it’s wise to move forward with the assumption that DFINITY won’t comment prior to the voting period, but also be flexible with our process in the event that DFINITY does comment.


1 Like

Simple anti-spam proposal:

  1. Allow NNS neurons to be configured with a ‘whitelist’ of neuron IDs that they will consider proposals from.
    a) The user should be able to turn on the option to automatically reject all proposals from non whitelisted neurons.
    b) This list should have sensible defaults. e.g. Dfinity foundation, Internet computer association, all named follow neurons in the app, neurons corresponding to working groups.
    c) The user should be able to edit the list to add new neurons to the list or delete spammy neurons from the list.
    d) The user should be able to edit the list for all the neurons they control in a single operation.
    e) Where the neuron follows another neuron for a given topic these liquid democracy based follow relationships should override any auto-rejection. That is if you follow cycleDAO and cycleDAO votes approve on a proposal from a non whitelisted node your neurons still vote approve even though you have selected automatically reject.

Possible objection 1: Excluding proposals from unknown parties could increase governance centralisation.

In most circumstances proposers of credible proposals are likely to be known or able to convince some known party to submit a proposal on their behalf, even where it is important for a proposer to be anonymous they will still be able to advertise the neuron offline and ask to be added to the whitelist.

It is true that a new proposer without any reputation will have to run two campaigns (1) to be added to whitelists (2) for the proposal to be approved. This will therefore encourage the formation of secondary chambers and working groups.

That is instead of a new person just submitting a proposal directly to the NNS they will be more likely to be successful if they ask some well known organisation or DAO to submit on their behalf. We can therefore expect community organisations to develop some kind of process for vetting proposals prior to submitting them. This IMHO would be a good thing that actually encourages the development of multiple deliberative governance processes similar to having multiple EIP type channels.

Possible objection 2: Makes it too easy to auto reject everything.

It would remain easier to just follow another neuron delegating decision making to them so this is unlikely to be a problem in practice. Besides the choice of auto rejecting everything is still a legitimate one, and one that cannot be prevented.

I’m not the most knowledgeable member here on this matter, so I would like to ask:

If the weighting of governance proposals are decreased, would that have any affect of distributed rewards, or will it be leveled based on other proposal topics?

@willguest @Hashimoto

You may want to start another forum Governance topic focused on your individual proposal. That would make it easier to keep conversations about your proposal focused instead of getting lost in comments about other proposals in this thread.


I just posted my concept for a Proposal reviews system. I can post the whole thing here but I also posted a thread in the forum for discussion.

Let me know what you think.


Why is it wise to move forward to vote on a proposal without any feedback or comment from DFINITY? I’m not saying that no votes should ever happen without DFINITY, but I’d definitely prefer to at least have the foundation give a once over of each of these proposals before they hit the NNS.

Unless DFINITY comes out and explicitly says they won’t be commenting for reason x, I think we should be cautious about any proposal that hits the NNS after ~1 week of visibility without DFINITY’s feedback.

For example, your Neuron Indexing proposal got feedback from several DFINITY employees (both positive & negative criticism), but the proposal itself went through the ringer and we can assume that most of the important arguments were laid out in the topic for everyone to see - that’s why I personally felt confident in voting for it.

Hi @justmythoughts,

Sorry, I should have chosen my words more carefully. I don’t think it’s wise to move forward without any feedback from DFINITY, but I do think its wise to plan to move forward regardless of whether DFINITY provides feedback. Basically, I don’t want to get into a situation where (a) the NNS is held up waiting on feedback that never comes or (b) forcing DFINITY to put resources into providing feedback on a topic that they may not want to. To sum it up - I would much prefer DFINITY provide feedback (as you do) but I also want to be prepared for a situation where they don’t provide feedback prior to NNS voting.

Regarding the 1 week timeframe, keep in mind that many of the topics have been discussed for the previous week and a half. For topics that are still being discussed, I’d be happy to extend the timeline to ensure that all topics are well deliberated and the NNS community feels they have enough information to make an informed choice.

1 Like

As of this time (15APR22, 0833 EST), here are the proposal that have been made and deliberated. Please let me know if I have left any actionable proposals off this list.

Double Blind Proposal Review System led by @MrPink13

Increase Proposal Rejection Cost led by @LightningLad91

Countering proposal spam by allowing auto-filtering proposals by neuron ID led by @Hashimoto

Periodic Confirmation of Neuron Followees led by @wpb and @Kyle_Langham

A governance inhibition system for dealing with spam proposals led by @willguest

Again, please let me know if I’ve left off any actionable proposals. I’ll continue to edit this post to ensure this list is accurate.

Proposal Leaders - please let me know if you think your topic needs more deliberation than the 18APR timeline. I want to ensure we have full dialogue before taking all of these proposals to the NNS for vote.


The proposal made by @MrPink13 needs more deliberation. No one considered my answer, except @MrPink13 himself… The problems that I underlined are still unsolved. If there is not such problems, thank to people to enlighten me by explaining it to me the solution, because I did not find the solution yet, and I did not see any answer either about this there.

In its current state, I don’t see why the randomly assigned neurons to filter N-A proposals, with a lot of ICP, would filter these proposals. For them, let pass a spam would be more rewarding than filtering it. Why would we assume that the filterer would not have a similar spirit to the spammer’s. It is a problem of regressus ad infinitum here.

So, incentivize the filterers neurons to act genuinely stays an entire problem for the moment. We can’t delay the same problem to an upper layer. So let us find the missing point : incentivize a genuine behavior of the upper layer. Plus, a spammer could become the filterer of another proposal eventually, so the problem can’t be avoided.

I have a solution by the way @MrPink13, but I would love hear others’ firstly. See you there : Using Randomly Assigned Neurons to Filter for Non-Actionable Proposals

How to resolve non-actionable/non-deliberated (also known as spam) proposals? I have a simple idea: 1. The voting rewards of governance proposals should not be different from other types of proposals; 2. If your proposal is adopted, then you should be rewarded with 1 ICP; 3. If your proposal is rejected, then, in addition to the loss of 1 ICP (or more?), then you should be forbidden from submitting a new proposal for a month, and if too many proposals (maybe 3?) are rejected continuously, then perhaps you should be forbidden from submitting any new proposals for a year (or forever?); 4. (Optional) Only 8 year gang can submit a proposal? (Note: No one can give a precise definition of spam, and the IC community should support free speech absolutely.)

Please note that proposal leadership for Increase Proposal Rejection Cost - #25 by LightningLad91 has been taken over by @LightningLad91.


Hi Kusiyo,

Could you create a forum thread to discuss you idea and include the specific changes you are recommending? The purpose of this is to (1) allow the community the opportunity to discuss the idea in as concrete terms as possible and (2) to make clear the actual proposal that will go forward to the NNS.

Oh wow. Yeah your right. Proper identification is a behavior we definitely want to reward. My apologies i got sucked into balancing my proposal and misread your initial points.

If you have a solution, please share, you may be right and it may be the final piece pf this puzzle. Probably the most important piece.

1 Like

In all honesty almost all proposals i have seen so far have really good points that solve key problems.

@LightningLad91 Lightninglads proposal cost increase sets a barrier for entry.

@willguest identified that its not necassary for humans to review all proposals and the suggestion of an ai filter is awesome.

@Roman if you can solve the problem of rewarding users to actually pay attention to incoming proposals then…

I think we have a very tight knit system here. One that can remain even after people parties come into play.


I just answered you there ! :wink:

Of course, I let you point me what I would have wrongly thought or not thought in my supposed solution.

1 Like


Please remove my previous proposal from this thread and add this new proposal I created. (I was not able to delete it)

New Proposal from MrPink

Much appreciated.