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.”
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.
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.
I’m all for this proposal. Set and forget is definitely not acceptable. If people can’t adjust their neuron(s) every 6 months, sounds pretty problematic.
So, personally, thank you @wpb for bringing this up. As always, you rock.
Would be great if the button for confirming neuron followees is always active, then we can keep resetting the timer to 6 months anytime without having to change followees, rather than only doing it when it expires.
Yes, the intent of the confirmation button and timer is to enable users to confirm at their convenience before the timer expires. Confirmation can occur any time and will reset the timer every time.
@levi Question for you. How would you manage dead people or inactive-lost account from voting. You would not want a dead person, who have set his following, to vote and make a difference for a proposal to pass or not, right?
I don’t see any other way then confirming your following on a regular basis.
I can’t say I have the best answer for how to best handle those situations but I think it’s a similar problem as someone leaving icp in their accounts and losing the account for whatever reason. Maybe the solution for things like that is with an on-chain in-sync government id database where users can match their accounts with their ids.
Haha why not reset all the followers right away ser, that seems like the way to achieve full decentralization. its not the race against the time we should be worried about, rather its the NNS biting its own tail is what we should be afraid of.
hey…relax it’s the weekend…take it easy…what ever fuck up ( or maybe not) you think you made is already done. Just take your Girlfriend or Boyfriend out for a drink, get a massage or something ( have you try Yoga ). stop watching CMC. you are not going to influence anybody in this forum. Smart people hang around here!!
I appreciate you following the spammer all over the forums trying to defend the IC community, but your posts themselves created spam, and I would appreciate it in the future if you just flagged the spammer’s posts without replying (they get hidden after the fact).
I got notified like 10 times from your responses.
Again thanks for the good intentions, but no need to be a superhero! The forums already have a flagging mechanism
). stop watching CMC. you are not going to influence anybody in this forum. Smart people hang around here!!