I’m glad my message is getting across. If we want the IC to be a globally neutral platform trusted by billions, rather than mired in politics, it needs less governance not more.
9 Likes
Looks like DFINITY does not understand what neutrality means.
Every time these organizations bring up new governance proposals, they are just complicating the governance and introducing additional trust assumptions.
A trustworthy independent reliable autonomous system must be applied.
The whole turns to be a chase for voting control and proposals implementation control rather than voting.
I insist that first of all must be a reset of followees.
Then set a max control of VP%. A good start is 2%.
In that point I must mention that every decision must be made only for vitality of ICP rather than maximizing rewards.
So autocompound maturity must 100% connected with VP% of each followee individually.
Lets say ICDevs control 2% which has already been setted as the max allowed control of VP%.
After autocompounding, this is increased to 2.01%.
Then automatically is applied the reset of followees.
If some neurons dont see that and (bad for them) they abstain from rewards after sudden resetting, then the unallocated rewards go to reserve and then the community decides what to do with them.
1 Like
I just wanted to support everything you are saying. I’ve tried to make these points in different forms already so I don’t feel the need to reiterate further.
@aiv please know that @Denis is not the only person who has made these points. They have been made by quite a few people in this thread. In every case you seem more interested in arguing back why they are wrong and you are right instead of listening.
1 Like
Can you elaborate a bit more please? the working group has met multiple times in a month. Has its own discord channel, GitHub, etc…
I think it’s fair to say you are too busy to follow their progress, but I think they meet fairly frequently. Every other working group meets every 4-6 weeks.
Or did I misunderstand your intent?
1 Like
yes of course I follow this →
Funny how I had to go through so many sites to register for an event which I didn’t end up attending.
Certainly, seems like being vigilant about a blockchain governance system such as NNS is a full-time job without pay. Especially after the tokenomics fiasco that DFINITY cooked up with ICPMN.
IMO,a good blockchain is one that requires the least amount of human intervention via governance. A working group meeting every 4-6 weeks seems weak. By introducing governance working groups, you are forcing participants such as I to take part in it or miss out on the development. Also in my opinion, there is no need for a ‘working group’ for governance if it can meet every week. This, however, is my two cents.
And yes, I was criticizing dfinity in general on how it interacts with the community. Is DFINITY blind to the rest of the world, or is it only in favor of ICPMN?
Read this post on how DFINITY is obscuring information wrt governance →
I don’t understand why anyone would trust this forum or DFINITY after all the bad faith practices DFINITY is engaging in along with ICPMN. Apparently, this nonprofit organization is good at picking sides instead of being neutral.
DFINITY has a broken grant system, broken comms, broken governance, and a terrible reputation among the web3 community to top it off.
DFINITY will just pump out more ICPMN propaganda to increase the voting power. Such a good friendship these people have.
Exactly
I think this is a bit harsh and unfair, DFINITY and @diegop are just doing their best.
We need to stop relying on DFINITY so much, and I think that’ll happen over time. Let’s just focus on making the changes we can and taking next steps.
2 Likes
Don’t mind me, I’m only fudding the NNS right now. If its a useless statement, it can be ignored.
1 Like
Perhaps we all just need a drink right now, lol!
3 Likes
I had suggested that votes should be counted by neurons not staked icp.
Which means if someone has 1 million tokens in a single neuron then his vote counts 1.
If someone wants to create o1 million neurons of 1 icp just to win the voting result then something is wrong with him.
The distribution of rewards will be according to staked icp.
But unfortunately this has been ignored.
So setting VP% control at 2% and automated resetting when this rises at 2.01% for example then we can control that big neurons cant win this game.
I don’t think any neuron owners would be happy with abstracting away from current liquid democracy, for this idea to work, we need proven proof of human solutions. I had previously thought about this. One could apply this idea to the governance voting/motion proposals and keep the reward the same across the maintenance proposals.
2 Likes
These Neurons are not proposing any great long-term viable solutions, most of the NNS solutions have been short-term oriented and easily exploitable ones.
We ready passed a proposal for automatically resetting the neuron followees, we need to push to have that implemented!
After we define on ethos, I was planning to use it to argue for a quadratic balancing of follow voting power. Basically these means that neurons direct the flow of less voting power per follower the more followers they have, meaning there would be no whale known neurons. Tokenomics and maturity would be unchanged, only the amount of voting power hitting the proposals. So basically, the only impact between following a large known neuron and a less popular known neuron, would be that your end influence on the outcomes of proposals would be slightly greater if you choose the less popular known neuron.
What is unethical exactly?
Examples are accepted
1 Like
If everyone could register and take the courses in this compliance link. Maybe DFINITY/ community should come up with this type of solution/ ability to register and take courses such as these.
Anyone creating a research project (especially containing human subjects) should be educated on the very basics of ethical standards. Actually, according to these courses, anyone with 5k invested shouldn’t speak on issues because of biases. Just throwing this out there. I recommend DFINITY register, create, and employ some sort of standard.
3 Likes
It’s not even specifically about ethics, just some types of general guidelines regarding usage.
When will the NNS censor things?
When will the NNS mint more ICP?
What’s the general scope/purpose of the NNS? What shouldn’t the NNS get involved in?
Should the NNS have a goal of being decentralized? (we assume yes, but this isn’t ratified anywhere by the community yet so technically no goals exist.)
Should the NNS be accessible and inclusive? Should it be focused on the long term health of the ecosystem?
Things like this! Most of them seem obvious, but right now we can only argue proposals based on our opinions, solidifying a few basic principles will let us root goals like decentralization into a shared foundation/consensus, to help us make arguments that are objective.
2 Likes
Nice food for thought.
I insist the goal is to come to an almost fully automated process.
And since icp is inflationary an automated process of emergency deflation should be applied.
Everyone who is concerned of might loosing his daily rewards isn’t something that NNS or ICP must take into any serious consideration.
Like your keys your coins it is your neurons your votes.
Modclub is supposed to be on the way of solving proof of humanity.
We need one from NNS for NNS
1 Like