So if the followers get adjusted voting power, then the overall induced voting power of the voting neuron will go down.
Let’s consider a simple example with 3 neurons N1, N2, and N3 that each have a voting power of 10. Let’s assume N2 is a sleeper neuron that follows N1.
Now
Direct voting power is: N1 = 10, N2 =10, N3=10.
Induced voting power (including following): N1=20, N3=10
Total voting power for decisions = 30
=> N1 influences the decision with 2/3 of the voting power
With the new feature, after a while N2’s voting power would be adjusted to zero and the total voting power would be adjusted accordingly, so:
Adjusted voting power is: N1 = 10, N2 = 0, N3 = 10.
=> N1 influences the decision with 1/2 of the voting power
Let me know if I made a mistake!
Then there is the case where the followee has adjusted voting power.
If this followee is a known neuron that should vote directly (but is now inactive), then all the followees would not get rewards and the induced voting power is zero. Hopefully since they don’t get rewards the followers would switch to follow others.
It gets a bit more interesting if there is a longer chain of following. In that case, if the neuron at the top of the chain votes, then votes would still be triggered for everyone who follows a follower, and it would depend on each follower and their activity whether the adjustment is applied or not.
Does this help or were you looking for something else?
Maybe we can consider the example below that I made and you can let me know if I had an oversight?
Indeed, the direct voting power (in relation to the total voting power relevant for decisions) of neuron N1 would increase (it was 1/3 and goes to 1/2), but the induced voting power would still go down (from 2/3 to 1/2). Do you agree with this?
Respectfully, I understand how the function works, but the scenario you’ve crafted in which a neuron loses voting power has no correlation to addressing what I’ve depicted.
I would appreciate if we could stay on conversation rather than attempting to introduce me as a fact checker for something else you’ve said.
Just to be extra clear and sure, we can expect a drop in DFINITY induced voting power after implementing this change assuming there is a material number of sleeper neurons? Because the idea put forth by various community members for a long time has been that there are many sleeper neurons here from genesis that were set to follow DFINITY neurons by default?
Oh…but…the percentage of voting power will not necessarily go down, and might even go up?
This is the concerning part. I think focusing on voting percentage is the more material metric, as it’s this percentage that wields actual decision-making power.
Like monetary supply and inflation, the actual number of dollars for example matters a bit less when the supply is materially changing.
But if this percentage accurately represents current voting power based on ICP staked in neurons and those actively participating, then perhaps this makes sense.
A key question seems to be: should sleeper voting power be completely removed from the total voting power calculations for determining quorums etc?
I would appreciate if you would stop using condescending language. There is no need to show disrespect to people who are willing to engage with you on the forum. @lara is clearly trying to engage with you in a mutually respectful and professional manner. You would be so much more effective with your arguments if you would leave out the ad hominem. Nobody cares for it. Stay focused on the topic of discussion.
But if this percentage accurately represents current voting power based on ICP staked in neurons and those actively participating, then perhaps this makes sense.
I think so too. I think it is actually useful to have both numbers - the overall and relative voting power of a neuron compared to if everyone were active as well as their influence with the current activity.
A key question seems to be: should sleeper voting power be completely removed from the total voting power calculations for determining quorums etc?
Yes correct. And one main argument why the design proposed to answer this with yes is to be able to make quick decisions.
I also think however it makes sense on a conceptual level to agree on quorums that make sense compared to who is actually participating.
How many truly “actively participate”? It’s a threshold we’ve applied in retrospect & continuously change.
Right, this is something that we are newly deciding with this design.
I think this is actually not very different from today in the sense that if the neuron you follow doesn’t vote you also don’t vote…
But yes, there is the new case where such a neuron could also have adjusted voting power
There is a slight misunderstanding here so I just want to help fill in;
19% of voting power represents what DFINITY currently owns, and 32% represents the portion of voting power they own in contrast to current active voting power (governance topic yields about 60% participation).
We can use this participation rate to estimate a minimum amount of voting power being stripped from the system upon failing vote confirmation after 6 months of this system being implemented (the inactive 40%, as they’re already losing rewards & haven’t changed anything).
This leaves us in a situation where 60% of the current total voting power becomes 100% of quorum - leading to a default control of 32% of voting power by DFINITY’s neurons with their current 19% of total voting power (not considering followees).
so you don’t want to do a one-time reset because it would initially prevent 51% of the total voting power being used, for quick emergency decisions? then divide the total voting neurons into a few equal chunks, to be reset sequentially over a designated time period. chunk A, B, C, D, whatever. then the impact would be softened. problem solved right? do a poll on X, “do you want to have to log in and press a button in the nns every 5 months for no reason, or else you lose your voting rewards?” the answer will be no.
Right now to make decisions quickly we have allowed one entity to gain complete write control to the protocol.
I am not sure I agree with the fact that this needs to be one entity.
After the introduction of voting grants, I hope that the following on critical proposals, such as IC OS election or protocol canister management, will spread over more known neurons.
If these known neurons can still be set up to react quickly, the trust is more spread but there is no need for one party.
Indeed it is a good question how this would work if we have hundreds of known neurons that can be followed. This will be a nice problem to have, but I think we are not there yet so this is something we can optimize for a bit later.
From what I read, he didn’t say it needed to be that way either - an observation was made about how the network has allowed one entity to control 99.99% of voting power on certain topics😅
It seems like the decision has already been made, now you’re tasked with pushing it to users.
