Open Call for Proposals to Resolve Non-Actionable Proposals

Ok…I’ll look at trying to get them submitted soon.

I’m a little surprised that no one else has submitted their proposals to the NNS yet. Please feel free to do so any time. Let me know if you need help. The proposal to increase proposal reject cost to 10 ICP passed today, so there is a good chance that Dfinity will implement that change within the next 24 hours. Hence, now is still a good time to get you proposal submitted.


@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).

  1. 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.

  2. 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.


It wasn’t down intentionally - I would describe it as a knock on effect of several changes made to solve other problems. @wpb can provide more detail I’m sure. If I’m remembering correctly was a known issue on the list of things to be resolved - but this has brought it all to a head.

10 ICP is going to hurt and will drastically reduce the ability for us to make the bold proposals we want to. I’d suggest setting it back to 1.

A better question may be that now that we e increased form 2% to 40+%, why not set it back?

1 Like

I’d suggest that you will be deducted 10 ICP after the change for I to effect. I’d recommend submitting from a 1 ICP neuron. You can always merge back later.

@justmythoughts @skilesare What is preventing you from summarizing your proposal(s) and moving forward? If you need more time to deliberate, then take more time to deliberate. If you are ready to submit the proposal to the NNS, then submit to the NNS. If you think your proposal has value at 1 ICP, then it should also have value at 10 ICP. The proposal will only cost you the rejection fee if it is rejected. What do you need to do to have confidence that it will not be rejected? The proposal rejection fee has gone up, but it was clearly announced and deliberated and there was plenty of time to submit proposals before it went up. I don’t see why the increased proposal rejection fee would change your course of action if you feel you have a strong proposal. Make sure you are submitting something that has a high probability of passing.

I have two or three projects going live next week and I’ve just been absolutely under the pump. I submitted the proposal to deliberations to the ICDevs board a couple of days ago, but no responses thus far…everyone is slammed. I don’t think what I have created has a strong chance of passing. I’m willing to pay $20 of our donor’s contributions to stir debate, but $200 is a sizeable chunk of our Community treasury. I’m not saying I won’t do it, but that it is harder to do. Once the proposal was submitted to increase I have to assume it will pass and the value will change while my proposal is mid-flight. It has happened before with wait for quiet. If I’m going to be hit for 10ICP I’d like to be certain that is the number rather than thinking it might be 1 and getting hit with 10. I’m a silly human and my brain just works that way. Thinking Fast and Slow Chapter 6 or something. :joy:


I respect your opinion, but please have some perspective. This whole proposal “hackathon” was really rushed, and I voiced my concerns early in the process.

Not all of us have the time and now hundreds of dollars to spend on something with no guarantee of passing. I can’t speak for others, but I don’t have the same following as you or some others who have submitted proposals, and therefore there’s no guarantee my proposal will pass. In fact, I’ve recently created a Twitter account to try and make sure there are many voices being heard outside of this forum.

I spent a time drafting an initial community discussion and ideating, then letting it rest with the community, and then spending a significant amount of time drafting up a new proposal last weekend. I simply don’t have have the time nor will to push something that will change the NNS without confidence that I understand the implications.

From a developer’s perspective, this is like skipping the staging/dev environment and pushing straight to production. If the community really wants to move and push changes out fast, that’s their right - but I prefer to move slower and get more consensus. DFINITY does not move this fast with any of their design or feature decisions - if they did the IC would have many more problems than it does today.

If you read my proposal with the incubation period, there is some agreement after a back and forth discussion and now there’s a push to find the right UX to support this. This means I have to lay out a basic UX vision for how I see this working out (I am not a UX designer, so this takes some time). I also have a grant project and other life responsibilities and am not in a hurry to rush a proposal that I do not feel is ready.


You are right. It’s important for you to take the time you need to feel comfortable and confident about the proposal. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.


@LightningLad91 @skilesare @Roman @willguest @justmythoughts @Kyle_Langham @levi @Hashimoto @kusiyo

So who here is willing to give @wpb 1 ICP each to submit a proposal to revert the NNS to originals proposal reward settings. Tabula Rasa. There is a chance it wont pass but if it does we remove a now large weak point in the NNS. I think that is the best solution for now until we find an effective spam method (The 10 ICP reject cost proposal will be an effective temporary deterrent for now.). From what I have seen I know many of you have come to the same conclusion. Motivating individuals to vote on governance proposals is a worthy cause but we should take a step back and find a solution that does not directly change core mechanisms in the NNS. It seems to be very finely balanced and its core mechanisms did not have any issues before we introduced our changes.


You’re proposing that we revert the governance weighting back to its original setting? If so, then I would donate 1 ICP for that proposal.


I would donate 5 out of my personal account.


I am taking a different approach.

I will be actively participating in crowd-funding a fund (Proposal 56430 ( - #3 by ic-jd) to generate spam proposals ; so as to show how ineffective it is to increase the rejection cost by a factor of 10 (1 icp → 10 icp).

We NEED to figure out a method to filter out the spam proposals.

I would also participate, but if Dfinity does not vote, it will not pass, because people got used to earn doubled rewards. The problem is : Dfinity also voted for the increasing of rejection fees. Still, I am perfectly fine about sending ICP yes. Maybe we can wait a moment, to give to Dfinity the time to see that the problem stays the same. I agree with the fact that initial settings were the most balanced. We had not had any spams problem with these ones.

1 Like

From a mathematical point of view (the one used by @ysyms to justify spam), raising the cost doesn’t solve the problem, just squeezes the profits. Their later claim was that the cost would need to get to something like 2000 ICP to be successful.

If it’s 10 ICP, I cannot afford to risk putting my own spam inhibition proposal forward.

1 Like

Have you considered that @ysyms now has the perfect setup for the best rug pull in ICP history if they achieve raising 600 ICP in the crowdfund campaign. They could take the money and run while leaving in their wake even more motivation by the community to address the spam for advertisement and announcement issue.

Spam for financial gain will be fully solved by proposal 55651. @ysyms is capitalizing on the fact that it will take time for it (or something else) to be implemented.

Whether or not @ysyms carries out the plan for this crowdfunding effort, they will go down in history as the most effective influencer of action by the IC community on this spam topic. (Unless @ysyms is actually a whale,) this self proclaimed high school kid stands more to gain personally by not executing the plan after receiving the funding. Any whale that stands to gain from spam proposals can submit their own proposals. It doesn’t require @ysyms to do it.

FWIW, I think @ysyms is brilliant and has perfectly executed a strategy to motivate the community toward action on the spam proposal topic. Some day I’d love to know if it was fully planned from the beginning or if the strategy developed as the community responded.

Edit: Hey @ysyms I see you have raised your crowdfunding goal. Congratulations. If you carry out the plan, would you please continue using a generic proposal title (e.g. Test_011) so it is easier to visually filter out actionable proposals among these crowdfunded proposals when scanning proposals in the dashboard?

Yes, the potential rug pull issue is definitely at the back of my mind. I judge people by their follow through. Based on what i have seen of @ysyms so far, i have reasonable confidence that he/she will follow through on his commitments. 600 ICP is not particularly big amount in context of the circulating supply.

To me bigger exposure is the context of crowd funding per se(not necessary just limited to spam) and it’s power. Seems IC is particularly tuned to harness this power. Secondly , as we know from systems design, changing some parameters in a complex system, can have unintended consequences elsewhere. We should keep that in mind as we begin to really mature in our thinking.

1 Like

I think we should start with one or two month period and then increase the duration gradually.

As for the spam, please consider reverting the voting reward changes that was initially intended to increase the manual participation for decentralizing NNS. After that, new voting incentive and proposal models can be discussed by the participants.

Edit: Reverting is damage control not perma fix

1 Like