@wpb This is because you and @Kyle_Langham gave the community 2 weeks to create governance proposals (April 18th deadline), and <= 1 week to deliberate on those them before sending them to the NNS.
It takes considerable time to draft proposals and even more time to review and vet these proposals.
The unintended consequences of quickly passing proposals such as increasing the reject cost will now be felt for the next few months.
Here are a few of these consequences (of us moving too fast).
-
Once this reject cost proposal change is made (I think it was executed), we won’t see many new governance proposals for awhile, except by larger, centralized organizations that are willing to take the risk like Maxis, cycle_dao, and maybe IC_Devs. These organizations may act as gatekeepers, offering to foot some of the bill for a proposal if they approve of it or earmark features in it.
-
There is still an increased reward to voters voters from voting on governance rewards, so if the rate of proposal submissions drops off, voters may be more receptive to approving new proposals regardless of their quality, which would keep the proposal cost at 1 ICP. This could bring us to a situation where before, voters were incentivized to vote on spam proposals, but now voters are incentivized to approve spam proposals.
@icpjesse I listened to episode 6 of your podcast last night where you talked about this being a problem that we, the community created by trying to turbocharge governance voter turnout with financial incentives before the community naturally reached those turnout levels.
Why did we do this?
It could be to incentivize decentralize participation and decentralization of the NNS (which Wenzel did succeed on), but it also coincidentally happened at the same time the ICP token was in a massive bear market and both the community and foundation were trying to give early investors a reason to lock up their tokens and stay invested.
We have to consider the unintended outcomes of all of these proposals and give ourselves the time to do so before pushing them out. DFINITY lets proposals sit for at least 1-2 months before pushing them out, and there’s a good reason for that. They have a 20-year roadmap and viewpoint, and therefore make changes that are deliberate, planned, and vetted. What’s happening right now is a blip on the radar.
I understand that receiving 2 spam proposals a day is annoying, but I ask that we try to balance short-term action with giving the community the necessary time to do their due diligence.