I agree that confirmation could be automated. I’m not sure that’s a problem though. In a way it is an active step toward meeting a minimum threshold for active participation. I wouldn’t want this automation made available through the NNS dApp, but if someone finds it easier to write a script than pushing a button twice a year then more power to them. That kind of active participation seems to meet the intent of the proposal.
I think it kinda defeats the purpose of this proposal, at the very least there should be a captcha when confirming a followee.
Ok that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
By the way, I also agree with your comments about voting on exchange rate proposals. It seems unnecessary. Their benefit from a tokenomics perspective is to ensure daily voting rewards, but their drawback is that they dilute incentives to participate in governance proposals.
I like that idea too.
In my opinion, your point regarding political parties is the best mental framework for understanding this proposal. The current state of the NNS is the equivalent of signing up for a political party when you reach voting age and then that being your default vote for all future elections unless you actively change it (including after your death!). This proposal would make the NNS more like a bi-annual election where you confirm your political party.
This proposal seems a little “paternalist”. “Set and forget” should be an acceptable norm. Any “minimum standard for active participation” is meaningless. A right without the right of abstention is not a real right. Indeed, we should add an abstain button to the existing adopt-reject system, and any neuron not voting should be considered as abstaining automatically. Don’t forget that we come into the blockchain world for freedom, not for something else.
Everyone deserves ICP, if ICP is good. We should be nicer to all the ICP hodlers, since they are already hurt more or less by the price “dumping”. NNS is not perfect, but in my opinion it is already the best DAO all over the world and even throughout the human history. And I do think NNS should be designed by Minimalism. Don’t make it too much complicated because it may scare people outside the IC community. We should welcome more and more people into ICP instead of making it a zero-sum game.
@wpb @Kyle_Langham I believe there is good intent with this proposal and I think there are solid reasons to adopt it. Kyle said something on his podcast that made a lot of sense. Something along the lines of “if a stakeholder dies without transferring their Auth device do we really want their voting power going to the same neuron forever?”
That being said. I would appreciate if you consider adding an initial 6 month delay from the day this proposal is implemented. By that I mean that if/when this change is pushed to the NNS it would set all existing neurons to a 6-month countdown before the initial reset takes place instead of a 1-month delay.
1 month seems too short given how long it has taken existing stakeholders to update their follower settings after the last reset. Also, Dfinity may need extra time to push this same functionality to the ledger app for seed investors who may not be capable of updating their settings.
@LightningLad91 thank you for this suggestion. I think we may be able to compromise on this detail, but 6 months from implementation is too long in our opinion.
The notification to the community about this change, if adopted, starts on the day this proposal is submitted. We don’t know how long it will take Dfinity to develop the code to make these changes, but if proposal 34485 is a good indicator then it would suggest 2 months. That would mean 8 more months of incentives for spam proposals if 6 months were the initial Followee confirmation period. We would much rather see incentives for spam proposals eliminated within the next 3 months, which is how we arrived at an initial confirmation period of 1 month. I’d rather see it advertised and promoted by the community and by Dfinity that this change is coming the moment this proposal passes…if it passes.
To be honest, I don’t think advance warning is what will drive people to confirm their Followees. I think the financial incentives that this proposal intends to activate is what will be the most effective tool at getting people to recognize the need to periodically re-commit to their selections. Just like implementation of proposal 34485, I expect there to be very little participation until the financial incentives exist to drive participation. It only took a few weeks to see significant changes. The majority of that happened after the voting rewards actually changed, but there was relatively little movement until they changed.
Do you have an alternate suggestion for how to word this detail in the proposal in a way that targets 3 months from proposal submittal as the turnaround time for asking everyone to re-confirm their Followee selections?
Perhaps a solution to you concern could be a separate proposal asking dfinity to provide announcements of pending and past tokenomics changes in the NNS dApp. These announcements could include approx timing, high level summary details, and links to forum topics that describe more details. That puts these announcements exactly where they are needed the most and gives visibility to the changes at a time when people are already thinking about neuron configurations and governance participation.
I like the idea, a lot. I’d suggest that the implementation be simpler. If every follow was simply a 6 month follow, with no exceptions: you could simply add a timer to the follow (UX and B/E). Add a “refollow” button (or similar) that becomes available only within a month of expiration.
Also, enable it with the 3 month timeline. The spam sucks, but it isn’t actually exploiting anything, the only thing suffering is non-voting neurons rewards, and our attention. The spam should go away after the first “unfollowing.”
A counter-proposal to generate more debate: Proposal to restrict rewards qualification to a threshold and restrict visibility - #32 by skilesare
If I understand correctly, the implementation of this proposal will not stop the next 6 months of garbage proposals
I think it adds more actions for the end user without many benefits, to the system or to the voter.
Also adds more work for dfinity team.
What is projected behaviour every 6 mths ppl will change their followee?
-the ones interested in changing their followee option will do so at any given time
-the ones that choose one just to keep getting their reward will chose the same or random pick from the list the ones on top
I think the current spamming situation created an overthinking situation.
Where there are incentives there will be different dynamics. We got here as the governance topics are incentivized differently to make ppl vote. this is the other side of the coin.
instead of making things simpler and removing the different weight, we make them more complicated not treating the root cause.
It is not expected that people will change their Followee selection every 6 months. This proposal does not require that action. It only requires re-confirmation of Followee selection in order to prevent your Followee selections to be reset.
This proposal 55651 is live in the NNS. Please go
For visibility and since this proposal is now live, bringing in my argument against this proposal and any periodic reset and confirmation of neuron followees that was given in How to fix the spam proposals that NNS is currently encountering - #18 by justmythoughts (a very similar proposal)
I don’t think we should let spam proposals constraint us, its an issue that is being dealt with and won’t be fixed with a silver bullet but a series of changes to the NNS (higher costs, fixed weekly quotas for rewards, proposal reviews, etc…).
I also understand your concerns on making the NNS less appealing to investors looking for a more standard approach to staking, personally I’d rather have less ICPs staked by informed investors than more by mindless ones just looking to hedge their capital, even if it goes against my financial interests. The NNS is the make or break of this project, we must make sure it functions in the best way possible and I don’t see that happening if some random neurons keep their voting power regardless of what they do cause their followers just care about the APY or are deceased and can’t unfollow.
A proposal recently passed that forces all stakers to be affected by a multiplier on their maturity, now that is something that keeps away investors, if I stake I dont want to care about the market trends, but soon I’ll have too. If pressing a button twice a year is too much for some people then they shouldn’t be staking in the NNS, I know it may sound harsh but thats my 2 cents.
First of all I want to thank you for taking the time putting up this proposal, I really appreciate your input and contributions towards the ecosystem. We need more individuals like you! The following statements have been written in a rush, so please don’t take them as an offense if they sound harsh
I don’t think there’s a lack of motivation, there’s simply a lack of knowledge of the current situation. The motivation is there already because people significantly miss out on voting rewards as we speak. Every rational individual would take action if they knew they had to take action.
If this proposal passes, nothing really changes except that people will miss out even more on rewards. We need awareness.
I still think this proposal is well intended, but it won’t solve the problem it tries to solve. Also if it passes the parties involved are imo responsible for an education campaign.
I disagree. I’ve been around this project for the past 3 years and never heard DFINITY say or promote anything along those lines. They even provided a solution to stay passive which is liquid democracy by following neurons.
How does this change directly affect the voting participation?
I really don’t believe this is the case, without a campaign promoting those changes the participation will go down even more and we’ll be in a worse situation. So keep things the way they are for now and promote the changes that lead to this situation in the first place first, after that we can evaluate further steps.
How will that work? Are you assuming this will lead to more people setting up follow targets for the governance topic or is there something else I am missing?
Thanks for your feedback @cryptoschindler. As always, you make excellent points and provide valuable feedback. I think the best explanation of why this proposal works can be found in my previous response I made to @Zane. Please see the link provided below.
I agree with your assessment that more advertisement is needed, but I also think a tokenomics incentive is also needed. Voting participation has flat lined at 46% and it’s been that way since approx late March in spite of the spam proposals.
I agree the statement is my interpretation, but I don’t think it’s too far off. It is the take home message I get when I read the tokenomics white paper that was published before genesis. It is also my read on the comments provided by @jwiegley and @diegop in the first 15 minutes of the Internet Computer Weekly podcast episode 28 with @Arthur Falls. I’m not saying they said this directly, but I am saying it is my interpretation of how the system is supposed to work after carefully listening, reading, and thinking about ICP tokenomics for the last 11 months.