The NNS Needs Direction
The NNS is both the greatest strength and the most likely point of failure for the Internet Computer. Everything depends on getting it right.
Right now we are starting to mature as an ecosystem, so big questions such as creating an NNS Treasury are being debated. The problem is that we all have different views regarding what the NNS is, should be, and could be. We are debating something which currently has no unified purpose, ethos, or constitution. This means the validity of different arguments regarding the NNS are fairly arbitrary, subjective, and often based on individual preferences.
This situation is far from ideal. We should first work to define the driving ethos of the NNS, and from that, we can then navigate a clear path forward for its future.
There is precedent for this, the Ethereum Foundation makes its philosophy clear on its website. In short, we need something like this for the NNS, to unify the community around a set of shared principles regarding its purpose, usage, and future.
This Proposal & The Process For Ratification
This proposal is simply a vote on whether or not we should begin the process of ratifying an ethos for the NNS. After itâs accepted, each individual Guiding Principle making up the ethos document will be its own proposal. Over the course of a few months, the ethos will collect Guiding Principals until thereâs a final proposal to ratify the ethos as âbasically completeâ.
EDIT 10/24
Actually, I think a time limit would be the best way to handle this, since itâll never be â100% completeâ. Basically, weâd start the process of creating the Ethos once this proposal gets approved, and from that point âGuiding Principlesâ can be added via proposals. At the end of December 2022, we can consider the Ethos complete enough for publication and general distribution/usage.
From that point, itâll remain a living document that can be modified via proposals, but we can all move forward using its contents as the foundation for evaluating proposals. Once ratified the ethos should also be added to the DFINITY documentation, NNS App, and other front ends. This will let new users being onboarded into the ecosystem have confidence regarding how the NNS will be used.
EDIT 10/24
Is this a list of rules? How would it be enforced?
Itâs not about making rules, itâs about clarifying the current consensus regarding the usage of the NNS. Thatâs all.
If the NNS had an ethos which directed it toward being a steward of the protocol, then it could still someday transform into something like a global digital government. Iâm not saying we even could put rules in place to prevent that from happening.
The difference is that a transformation of the NNS can happen deceptively and slowly, and without an ethos that shift would go fairly unnoticed. If thereâs an ethos in place, then shifts in the focus of the NNS would involve updating the Ethos during the process, and thatâll give community members like myself a clear indication if Iâm starting to contribute to something I never wanted to be a part of.
As is a stands with the NNS right now, do any of us have any clear idea of exactly what the NNS is going to do with itâs control of the network? What exactly are we contributing to? I think itâs worth taking some time to try and define that.
Why âEthosâ? What will this provide?
Perhaps âEthosâ is the wrong word. If you know of a better one, please suggest it!
We need a way to set accurate general expectations for what the NNS will do with itâs power, so that token holders and projects can make long term decisions. Why would you build on a network where the NNS has the power to censor your canister, and you have literally nothing to go off of which could give you a clear indication of what might bring that situation about? How can you trust a token when more could be minted at any time, and thereâs not even a general idea of how and why that might happen?
The Ethos can change too, and if it changes to misalign with the needs of specific stakeholders, then those stakeholders need to know so that they can leave to join other web3 networks which do fit their needs. For example, if the community did want an NNS that could act as a central bank, then many projects would leave. Right now some are leaving simply due to the lack of certainty, which is a pity because I donât think the NNS Treasury thing will ever actually be implemented. If there was an Ethos opposing things like the NNS becoming a central bank, perhaps these projects would have less uncertainty in the future of the NNS and be willing to stay.
If the Ethos is largely ignored and problems arise, that can be called to attention to drive the promotion of either changes made to it (to generalize it further) or have more adherence to it. Itâll just be a tool for helping drive general alignment, which wonât be perfect but it can at least be an improvement on the current situation.
Possible Guiding Principles
Iâd like to submit these as examples of Guiding Principles that we might consider adding to the NNS Ethos, should this proposal pass and we begin the process. However, as stated each guiding principle should be its own proposal and be collaboratively composed by the community.
The NNS exists specifically to maintain the ICP network in a fair and decentralized manner. Despite what it can or could do, no other purpose or task should be applied beyond its responsibility of making sure the network is reliable, robust, and secure for all those who use it or build upon it. Users and developers need to know that the NNS will not take on other agendas beyond fulfilling the promise of a fair and decentralized world computer and that it will never become their competitor, enemy, or ally.
Other types of goals and tasks beyond this scope can be fulfilled by dapps built on top of the Internet Computer, and the NNSâs only job is making sure the network remains the perfect foundation for that to happen.
In other words, if the NNS starts doing anything which might make it a competitor to something which could be built on top of it, then its starting to exceed itâs scope of responsibilities. The NNS is the only entity that can maintain the ICP network, so that should remain its exclusive focus and responsibility.
NNS deliberation should be based on the merit and logic of proposals, and place no limitations or preferences for who can participate based on how much money, power, and/or influence a proposer does or doesnât have. In other words, the NNS is a tool used, owned, and available to every neuron holder without restriction, prejudice, or bias.
Since collusion and majority control by a small group would break the accessibility and impartiality of the NNS, the NNS may adopt measures that contribute to reducing the risk, impact, and incentives of collusion.
The NNS must never become a political platform or tool for evaluating ethics. The NNS has no place in deciding what âthe greater goodâ is in a situation thatâs not directly related to the technical operation of the network. The NNS has no right to violate any human rights of any group or individual in any situation. The NNS should not be used to determine what organizations, projects, or people are âworthâ, âowedâ, or âforâ.
The NNS stands for nothing except making sure the ICP Network remains strong and stable.
In the rare and unlikely situation that the NNS finds itself as the exclusive and necessary decider in something outside its scope (perhaps akin to the Trolly problem), it should delegate the dilemma to individual neuron holders, not allowing an outcome via a proposal. This is because proposals represent the official stance of the protocol, and the protocol should not take a stance on these types of issues.
In other words, in situations where it cannot be avoided, then neuron holders may be given a mechanism to individually evaluate the morality/politics of a situation, but the NNS shouldnât take a stance or determine the outcome uniformly by using the proposal mechanism.
Startups often need to follow advice such as âmove fast and break thingsâ. However, the NNS is not a startup, it maintains the foundation for an entire ecosystem of builders which need long-term reliability for their dapps to succeed. As such, the NNS cannot afford to âbreak thingsâ, and must not let important matters with long-term effects be rushed by the impatience or urgency which will always be present. The NNS will be controlling a network that will exist beyond any of us, a network that may come to have powers beyond anything we currently realize, so we cannot know what sacrifices we would be making when putting the long-term stability of the protocol at risk.
The NNS will not become a tyrant by controlling users and/or assets as a police force or justice institution. ICP was invented specifically to create a safe place for autonomy, privacy, and participation, so the NNS must respect, reinforce, and adhere to those goals.
Manipulated economic systems are inherently unjust and untrustworthy. Users need to trust that, even over the long term, the tokenomics of ICP will not be manipulated via the NNS to promote the agendas of different community participants.
-
7. The NNS will only censor to avoid the distribution and proliferation of gross physical human suffering or to protect the operational functionality of the network.
The NNS may choose to censor when something violates a law that is both common across most countries and known as an obvious wrongdoing that causes gross physical human suffering. This means child pornography websites, murder-for-hire marketplaces, human trafficking websites, and illegal military weapon dealing marketplaces are all eligible for censorship.
However, the NNS does not define or determine justice, it simply provides neuron holders with a mechanism for flushing out extreme examples of content that directly stem from or facilitate the physical harm of innocent people against their will.
For example, something may be illegal simply because it doesnât fit the political agenda or propaganda of a particular government, but that doesnât mean it should be censored. Likewise, a project may do something morally wrong, but it does not cause any physical harm and the NNS has no right to censor it (such as a website that letâs married people find someone to cheat on their spouse with). Other crimes involving willing participants, sensitive data, and/or intangible harm (such as emotional) are not the NNSâs responsibility or obligation to censor.
Again, the NNS should not be the police, small claims court, or judge of the network, itâs censorship power is a tool of last resort to only be used against atrocities.
Regarding the aspect of âor to protect the functionality of the networkâ. This is meant to protect the NNSâs ability to remove any canisters with harmful code that threatens the functional integrity of the network/protocol. This is because the NNSâs primary task is keeping the network stable.
This would stimulate growth but no one is willing to have that conversation at the current time. And you can not avoid politics because politics creates law with created order that is needed for business to be in check. Just my thoughts.