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 doesnāt 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 itās 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 doesnāt 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 Iād 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 itās 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
2 Likes