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.
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.
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 !
Of course, I let you point me what I would have wrongly thought or not thought in my supposed solution.
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
So I created a thread.
@MrPink13, @hashimoto, @willguest, @wpb do you feel ready to move forward with your proposals? I’ve mentioned the idea of delaying the 18APR start of proposal voting. We can still do that if you feel you need more time for discussion and edits. If not, we can move forward with posting all the proposals between 19APR and 25APR (with an introduction proposal tomorrow).
I am still new to the forum and this is really the first time I have put ideas forward here, so I am happy to hear thoughts on how to improve them and find a good route to a formal proposal.
On one hand, I think my proposal solves certain problems that others don’t but, on the other hand, do not feel that it has been thoroughly critiqued in the discussion. Several replies suggested other possible solutions, but few really addressed the structure I posted. Generally I would not say that the proposal has “broad support within the community”, which has been noted as the goal of putting things into the forum.
I would love to move forward with it, but I have a strong suspicion that the proposal would not pass without amendment so unless I hear other voices of support or can develop it more, I will not take it further.
Yes, I am updating the Microtasks proposal and putting the finishing touches on it. I have come to the conclusion that all these systems suffer from the same critical error. They rely on a mechanical mechanisms that are meant to be set in place and forgotten. This is is extremely unreliable and could extend ad infinitum. Its a mistake and they will be gamed eventually. We need vetted humans in the loop.
I am ready to submit this proposal at any time. @wpb can you help me out here?
What about hosting a Twitter Space a few days next week for people to present their proposal, and then to go back and forth with arguments for/against. Both Kyle and Wenzel have pretty decent sized Twitter/substack followings, so I’m sure you both could bring in a decent turnout
How important to you is it that we submit the announcement proposal that contains links to all forum discussions for proposals that you all plan to submit? Technically an announcement is classified as spam because it is not actionable, but there is a utility in doing it. I’m on the fence and leaning toward not doing the announcement, but only if you agree that it is not necessary. I think everyone should feel free to submit their proposals any time over the next week regardless. I am more than happy to submit the announcement if you feel it is important. I am also happy to include this type of announcement in the body of the proposal that @Kyle_Langham and I plan to submit so that it informs people of the alternative proposals they can consider. I’ll wait for your advice.
In favor of submitting an announcement proposal - I think an informative proposal like this should hit the NNS.
Not everyone is as active on the forums (they’re technically developer forums), but they will be more likely to see and engage with all of these ideas if they’re well organized in a succinct summary with links to each of the forum posts that a significant portion NNS voters will see.
Hi @willguest. I think your proposal attacks the problem in a unique way and, as such, I think it would be beneficial to be include within the group of proposed ideas.
The purpose of the forum (in my opinion) is to (1) educate the community on a problem and possible solution and (2) solicit feedback to help refine the solution. I think your forum post accomplished #1. It sounds like you are hesitant because you feel you did not accomplish #2. To that I would say that while the forum is filled with incredible minds who are dedicated to the IC, I don’t believe that forum participation is true sample of voters on the NNS. Much of the voting power on the NNS doesn’t provide feedback via the forum, at least from my anecdotal evidence, and vote totals could differ vastly than the perceived forum discussion. The tax proposal is a good example of this.
I would suggest you move forward with the proposal. But then again, it’s not my 1 ICP
Thank you for asking; I have no preference.
In some sense, spam proposals can affect our voting rewards so dramatically only because the reward mechanism itself is now in a non-equilibrium state. This may reveal very important information for the NNS governance.
I personally welcome any proposals, including “spam” proposals and, of course, your announcement proposal, since they all reveal some information more or less to the IC community.
If we can see all of this as an internal part of the evolution process of NNS, then maybe we should not be so pissed off by recent spam proposals and just should be more patient.
I probably won’t submit mine if the submission amount is raised. 10 ICP is actually a significant amount for ICDevs at the moment. Especially since I have two. I don’t see enough support for them at the moment.