Periodic Followee Confirmation Follow-Up

I don’t think it is convenient to reset followees every 6 months if one has 1 neuron as a beacon for other neurons assigned to different identity anchors. At the same time, voters should have the right to convenience and decide to whom and for how long they entrust their voting power. In this case, it seems reasonable to give a single deadline of 6 months for each neuron to choose how long they want to observe a given neuron (along with the option of indefinite time of following).
Then anyone who considers a periodic reset to be good for the decentralization would set their following for, for example, a year, and someone who simply wants to permanently entrust their vote to another neuron (for example their favourite foundation) would do it permanently.

Let’s get people choose, reset once and that will be real decentralization. Without imposing one right option.


I don’t disagree that it could be a very useful & beneficial implementation.

The point of contention comes from how it’s managed, and funded.

Thanks for taking the time to address every one of my points. You’re clearly very passionate about the ecosystem and I applaud your efforts.

If the followee neurons were somehow defrauded/tricked into following named neurons, or the defaults were intentionally hidden from people in the UI, I would agree. But if changing from the default was easy, I would argue this is what the followees wanted. I wasn’t around then, so I can’t say from personal experience.

Ahhhh, the infamous “you promised” I see so much. In my mind, “promises” and statements like “we’re working on it”, “possibly in the future”, “we’ll circle back to that”, mean it’s super low priority or it’s not going to get done for the foreseeable future. They’re just words to satisfy people asking the question for a short amount of time.

Should you HAVE to? I would say that’s debatable. If you want it done it a timely manner, then yes, you have to. Otherwise you’re just going to keep having to ask, which is annoying when something is important to you. The community (regardless of how the voting works right now) has voted that it’s not a priority.

I can see that. I think this goes into a more philosophical discussion regarding governance though. If everyone has been able to vote, then this is what the “people” in the ecosystem want, regardless if you agree with it or not. If the votes it took to get to the current system weren’t illegally obtained in some way, then it’s working as intended, right?

Definitely not unrealistic at all. I’m more emphasizing you’re forcing people to participate. The less often they’re forced to do something, the easier to swallow.

I think this is a rare, yet fair concern that should be considered. I personally feel as though it is beyond a fair trade off for decentralization, but I can see where the issues come from.

For instance, my named neuron originally had another ID, however upon merging two together, the ID changed, and the old disappeared. Left an awkward situation in which I had to workout how to configure the non-visible neuron to follow the new one.

So I can see how it could be annoying having to reconfigure neurons on a 6month basis.

I honestly don’t find this unreasonable at all - it would probably be the ideal outcome for most.

Yes, I was an advocate for it, but that is different than your claim that I removed rewards from people. I was an advocate because at the time either DFINITY could not vote at all since they would trigger 100% of total voting power or they had to wait until the very end of the voting period and vote according to everyone else that did vote (which amounted to around 3% of total voting power). This was a handicap for DFINITY and the community in my opinion. It was a change that was sorely needed and I don’t recall there being any dissent on the need for that change at the time. I also feel like I did my part to get the word out that the change was coming to minimize the impact to as many people as possible. It was not a sudden change, but the tokenomics incentives that reward active participation in governance did work. It was amazing how quickly people set up their neuron Following on the Governance topic within a week of the implementation of that change. People were always promised rewards for voting and anyone who votes has always received those rewards. The NNS exists because change is necessary and it provides a mechanism for people to make decisions on those changes. I still don’t see the problem with being able to recognize the need to decentralize the Governance topic and then advocating for the community to understand those changes and respond to them accordingly.

The governance landscape being described in 2021-2022 was drastically different than it is now. While neurons may not have been “tricked” into assigning their voting power - if you wanted to receive the entirety of your governance rewards, you HAD to vote on every single proposal. When tens to hundreds of proposals go through a day, this obviously isn’t feasible, when most people have a set & forget mindset. Beyond this, the available list of followees was slim. There was 4 total, by memory, being DFINITY & ICA (the same entity), IC Devs, and ICPMN.

So it is not an accurate representation to say that everything passed via NNS, is what the community wants. Genesis Governance was extremely centralized, and still is.

While it’s easy to say that people stake to better the network & participate in governance - let’s be honest, based off the ratio that “set & forget”, most are here for the APY.

When it relates to the decentralization of the network, at the largest scale, is that justifiable? Should they not be held accountable for their words?

As evidenced by the original post, exorbitant patience has been exercised regarding this implementation. At what point are people allowed to ask questions about the decentralization of the network?

As previously stated, the governance landscape within this timeframe was beyond centralized. Were they illegally obtained ? No, of course not. Were they unethically withheld? I think that could be argued, given the promise of decentralization, to never come (2 years is a long time).

I’m just pointing out the contradiction - on one hand we’re okay with changing terms without people knowing, on the other, it’s okay because the VP has been allocated.

Forcing people to participate would be taking away their staking rewards if they don’t vote on every proposal or assign their VP to another entity.

I am advocating for the re-affirmation of the assignment of VP. I guess it could be argued that it forcing recurring participation, but I think it could also be argued it simultaneously reinforces decentralization & voter reassurance in their Followee.

As a governance participant, and advocate for the idea, yes, that would make you partially responsible for the removal of rewards from those who do not vote. Just because you did not personally write the proposal does not absolve the role you play in passing it.

I don’t disagree that it is something that was beneficial to the longterm governance of the protocol. Let’s not get it twisted, I referenced this in correlation to @jwarner ’s comment

It was referenced that this essentially “rugs” rewards from those who “staked from genesis with the understanding they could follow & forget”. I clarified that, this system referenced, wasn’t even in place at genesis. Then provided an example as to how this feature in fact “rugged” more participants initially, to begin with.

I’m not saying you were wrong for advocating for it - I’m simply stating that you did.

Fair enough. I guess it boils down to decentralization through centralization, and how much time each person believes is an acceptable amount of time to stay centralized.

No argument there! Ha ha!

I think it sucks when companies/people do it. But it happens all of the time, at least here in the states. Sometimes people are genuine, sometimes not. Hard to say really. Priorities change, staffing changes, business priorities change. While they may have had every intention of doing it before, they might not now? Even when companies give hard dates, they still miss the mark a lot of times. Video game release dates that miss are a dime a dozen. I’m not sure what effective way you can hold them accountable?

You can ask as often as you want! Moderators might not be too happy about it though. LOL

In my opinion, you have to ask yourself at some point, is this worth my time and effort? If Dfinity, the community, and governance just isn’t moving towards decentralization in a way or as fast as you think it should, then when is it time to throw in the towel? Or do you keep fighting for what you want? Find new ways to ask? Move to a different ecosystem? Pay money for the NNS proposal to get coded yourself? Obviously those are rhetorical questions.

To me personally, 2 years is not a long time at all given my perceived complexity of the system. I’m not a dev so it’s hard for me to gauge how long it should take.

I’m not saying forcing people to do it is a BAD thing. And I agree, it would probably be beneficial to the system as a whole. I’m saying people in general don’t want to be forced to participate in anything so that just adds to your uphill battle in getting this prioritized.

1 Like

With all due respect, I think this is a poor excuse to sidestep decentralization. The same people who were involved with that conversation then, are still here today.

Historically, public dialogue has been extremely effective.

@diegop may not be happy that I ask about the followee reset twice a year, but as they all know, that isn’t going to stop me from asking questions regarding progress.

Personally, I’ve invested more time into ICP, building upon it, and it’s governance, within the last 2 years, than just about anything else. I don’t have to explain what ICP provides here of all places - but to say the least, decentralization of such a powerful tool is invaluable to me.

You would be amazed the progress that has been made over the last 2 years. I’m not advocating for immediate removal of VP from DFINITY. I’m advocating for the periodic re-affirmation, that people are comfortable with who their VP has been assigned to. If that results in DFINITY losing VP, that must mean the network has decided it’s ready to entrust its VP to other reputable Named Neurons.

To this, I would say nobody is being forced to participate in governance. As many in this thread frequently like to state, when you created your neuron, you signed an ever changing contract at the discretion of the NNS. That in itself was a choice.

Oh, I agree 100%! I would love it if every company/business entity followed through on their promises and statements. It just doesn’t happen.

Then I really hope this post gets an official response. I’m pretty cynical though, so I won’t hold my breath. Ha ha!

It’s always good to see people with such powerful conviction fighting for what they believe in. Hats off to you. I appreciate the dialogue.

I agree. I think we understand each other here but may differ philosophically? Again, I appreciate the dialogue.

1 Like

I know you are doing your best to understand and represent information as facts, and I applaud you for it. However, I find this statement to be egregious. I am not a whale or a genesis token holder and do not / did not have significant voting power to pass proposal 34485. If you follow the link to the dashboard you will see there were no named neurons that voted on the proposal that implemented that change…they didn’t exist at the time. DFINITY also did not vote on it. That proposal was passed by unnamed token holders who had every right to vote according to their own convictions. I played no more role in passing that proposal than yourself, which was to vote with the voting power that I directly owned at the time. Your claim that I am responsible for removal of rewards from those who do not vote because of proposal 34485 is equivalent to me trying to claim that you are responsible for the compounding maturity proposal 48623 since you are now a named neuron. I mean, even if you were a named neuron at the time it passed, which you were not, it’s ludicrous to claim that you are responsible for that proposal anyway since the entire NNS gets to vote and you do not get to choose who follows your named neuron.

You’re trying to convolute the fact of the matter.

Regardless as to whether you were a named neuron, large token holder, or any other of the criteria you’ve listed; you played a crucial role in the distribution & advocacy of the proposal.

While you may not like it, it does not absolve the fact that you were partially responsible for the outcome, regardless how large the contribution may be.

As governance participants, we’re all responsible for the proposals that we’re advocating for, and voting in favour of. It’s dishonest to absolve yourself of that responsibility.

So yes, I’d agree that every single proposal I’ve voted in favour of, and advocated for - I’ve partially been responsible for.

I find the topic quite controversial. Ideally, people would not have to confirm their choice every moment, and the network would be decentralized.
The question is, what does the word ‘decentralization’ mean to you? If it is to be a decision of the majority of independent entities, and not a few influential neurons such as ICA or DFINITY, it may be worth expanding the so-called “People Parties” that the foundation is working on, and the Voting Power itself shouldn’t have too much to say?

Capital tends to centralize, and no matter what system they put in place, someone influential can still get the majority in some case (if they get huge popularity among the community during the followees reset). Lack of reset may reduce activity, but at the same time increase stability in decision-making.

Stability seems to be a desirable feature in system updates, while popularity in Governance topic. The problem with the “All topics” is the initial setting neuron 28 as default, while the ‘Governance’ topic should be more engaging and actively managed by the people.

If I had the causative power, I would do the following: immediate (and one-time) reset of followees for neurons that automatically follows neuron 28 since genesis (because it wasn’t their personal decision) and introduced a periodic confirmation followees for the topic ‘Governance’ where the voice of a real human being would be more important and not Voting Power.
For managing in the governing theme, the max. reward would be the same for each personality (basing on activity), while the other topics would remain as they were with Voting Power. Rewards for voters in the ‘Governance’ topic could be some % of the rewards allocated to neurons voting based on VP, which would encourage many real people from outside the ecosystem to join. There could also be a minimum stake that people would be exposed to, but it wasn’t too high and gave everyone the same vote (and the same rewards).

Then capital would run the system and people would have real power over the network and protocol, regardless of the state of their wallets. Thanks to this, they could feel their real impact on the development of the network and support for decentralization, being easily included in it. This would be a compromise at the capitalist-communist level, on which the whole world functions stably on a daily basis.

1 Like

That’s fair, it’s bound to attract differing opinions. However I don’t think the defining terms of decentralized governance are nearly so simple. We have to reach a point in which people are actively recognizing what they’re doing by assigning their voting power. Furthermore, a point in which people actually choose who they’ve assigned their voting power to.

I don’t believe this adequately justifies indefinitely postponing the decentralization of voting power. While it’s true, yes, capital influences governance, we aren’t even at a point in which that is the case. The majority of the voting power assigned within the “all except” category was done so automatically, and came with the consequence of losing rewards if deviated from, without voting manually on all proposals. Which is obviously overly time consuming with the amount of proposals that go through on a daily basis.

I don’t disagree with this, although I think it opens the door to a more controversial topic - being the creation of new inflation, or outright reduction / redistribution of current neuron rewards.

I believe this is a concept that would be worth playing with ideologically, however I think we have to consider that governance topics aren’t even what enact change.

The governance topic is the only topic that does not result in immediate on-chain events, signalling for off chain action - which the foundation says they’re against, as evidence in the original post.

Which is why I’m having to make this post in the first place - off-chain action was promised via the governance topic, and was never followed through upon.

The concept that governance proposals mean something is nice in theory, but this whole thread is showcasing why they don’t.

AFAIK, voting rewards could depend on IC’s income in the future (when it becomes profitable). Then, for example, 90% can go to voters on ‘All except governance’ topics depending on their participation and Voting Power, and 10% of the income can be distributed among all neurons that voted on the ‘Governance’ topic (which passed the ‘proof of humanity’ verification process) in the proportion equal for each neuron (in other words, a real person) participating in the Governance process. I think that 10% of net income to support decentralization (and therefore network security) would be quite reasonable. Similar fees occur in the DPOS blockchains for transaction validators, so real people could be “validators of network decentralization” for us.

When cycles are utilized, they are burnt. I’m not aware of any other “income” for ICP as a network, only burn rates.

Math was done to extrapolate these burn rates, and I believe it was found it’s 3 years before the IC is burning more ICP than it is minting.

Leaving us in a scenario in which we still have to generate a new stream of rewards, or pay people in cycles from available burn rates. This would come in the form of reduced cost for computation power, or increased cost on the side of developers.

Not saying it can’t or shouldn’t be explored, just that it’s a controversial topic.

1 Like

In order to reduce inflation, first of all, we need fix the issue of nodes ‘Awaiting in Subnet’.
They shouldn’t receive rewards for processing, and if they do, certainly not 100% as it is at the moment.
DFINITY should also intensify work on the dynamic rotation of nodes between subnets, which would reduce the chance of unhealthy behavior of nodes. Then one could think about reducing the number of nodes in the subnet, which significantly reduces costs (as illustrated by Plethora Devs Team in them last Governance proposal).

Again, I don’t think you’re wrong - but this delves into a much different topic, which probably isn’t suitable for keeping this thread on track.

Gonna give the benefit of the doubt, and assume nobody from DFINITY has seen this topic yet.

Tagging a few people who I believe may contribute to providing further clarity;

@diegop @bjoernek @chepreghy (I know I’ve missed a few, apologies if anyone feels left out)

Keep in mind Memorial Day is a federal holiday in the US, and Pentecost is a Christian holiday which takes place on the 50th day after Easter Sunday and Monday is also free in EU so I guess starting tomorrow more people will be able to jump in :wink: Not sure why the Chinese don’t reply but anyways getting off topic.

1 Like