Will do. Thanks for fir the input
Love it! Added that book to my list as well!
Youve done a great job of perserveering. I think when we have completed our work dissenters will see the value. We can integrate the perspectives shared in this thread then and feedback on our output
2 Likes
OK, that’s an interesting perspective. I can see how it might not be considered a tokenomics change by that definition. It will certainly change how much reward people get if they don’t confirm Followees, but their reward does go back to what is was previously once they configure again.
I thins pattern might be called “do no harm” that can only be violated in rare cases of “extraordinary common good”. Definitions to be vigorously debated.(And as @Arthur has eloquently mentioned probably has some prior art in policy creation)
2 Likes
I can agree to that kind of language
This is definitely an ethos I would strongly support.
My hope is that you, @Arthur, @lastmjs, @bjoernek, @brutoshi, @diegop, and others in the governance working group reach an agreement on scope and boundaries of this ethos and push it forward as a deliverable of the working group. I think there are a lot of good ideas here and I just want to see it developed by people who are actively talking to each other in a focused setting instead of just exchanging blog posts and twitter messages. I think @Denis would be a good addition to that team by the way, so hopefully he is available.
3 Likes
No, I think a treasury would contribute to decentralization. And I think the NNS is already defined in a pretty tangible way.
I did not mean everybody in crypto actually believes deeply in decentralization, I meant everyone pays lip service to it. Like Vladimir Putin talks about bringing peace to Ukraine. No written ethos will change the motives of those questionable dapp developers, nor prevent them from acting on those motives.
The NNS can be relied to vote to take down such canisters, no ethos needed for it. It seems pretty self-evident. How does it help to put up a banner saying. “If you harm the network we will take you down”?
I have addressed this at some length, and the Super Mario discussion also did at greater length. Illegality is not uniform across nations. Nor are definitions of things considered illegal, like child porn, at all objective. I cannot stress enough how bad it would be to have content guidelines at the NNS level.
This is the crux of more than one current debate. But is it not true that we actually have a published ethos about inflation, a very clear indicator that inflation outside of node rewards is capped at 10% to begin with sliding down to 5% annually? Why do we need a further clarification of it, when we have a firm commitment to this path?
As I said initially, a lot of the fear being expressed comes from certain economic philosophies that I believe misunderstand real world economics and misapply those misunderstandings to crypto.
Obviously there are people who strongly support an ethos and I think it’s best to form a working group and get to it. More conversations once a code has been formulated. Probably no point in believers and disbelievers engaging further at this preliminary stage.
3 Likes
It’s quite silly when you think about how most of posts about governance and the direction of the IC is done by people who probably have less than 1000 ICP staked, and who are just following another neuron to vote for them. Ideally I’d like to see a forum with discussion primarily by the neurons with the largest amounts of voting power, with proper NNS integration instead of the disjointed approach of using this forum to discuss proposals. There’s too much arguing by people who cannot sway a proposal one way or the other which just causes more confusion than anything.
4 Likes
I think the NNS should only host Retail, registered business and leave most of everything else on web 2.
It should not have to regulate but only provide a secure network and let the retail business regulate and be responsible for their own traffic.
The NNS is in the business of cycles and security.
I am talking about top 100 business that need to have their customers data safe guarded from spammers and provide your power, communications, insurance and so on.
Not sex, disinformation, games, gambling and drugs.
Why build a new home only to trash it with rubbish.
1 Like
I think I am more of a constitutional minimalist than even you, @wpb. Even though I would personally oppose an increase to the current inflation schedule now and into the foreseeable future, I don’t think I (or the majority) can or should be absolute about this position in perpetuity with 100% certainty.
The only absolute Ethos that I can support is collective decentralized choice, whatever that choice is now, or will be in the future. That said, neurons owned by organizations rather than individual human beings would not qualify by this standard.
Therefore, I would be OK with a qualification that any tokenomics changes must be approved by a majority of neurons owned by individuals (or at least after excluding neurons known to be owned by organizations, such as DFinitiy’s and ICA’s neurons). We could potentially also exclude follower votes derived from these non-human followees on critical tokenomics proposals. That should alleviate the key concern here of centralized ICP organizations ramming through tokenomics changes that a significant majority of individuals oppose.
1 Like
Since the Ethos can be amended, nothing is absolute.
The Ethos can only be amended because collective decentralized choice is the current absolute Ethos. Thanks for confirming my point. I was only adding that “decentralized” should truly mean decentralized human choice on the most fundamental proposals about how the NNS is run.
Another suggestion to make certain fundamental decisions more decentralized than now would be to allow organizations to atomize their neurons somehow into the human beings that they collectively represent (to avoid excluding organizational votes cast by the dictator that runs that organization, per my previous suggestion). For example, we are currently excluding from the NNS all the valuable individual votes from DFinity employees that disagree with DFinity’s dictatorial vote. That is probably OK for most proposals, especially routine or technical ones. However, it is a significant centralization weakness on more fundamental proposals, such as Ethos and governance.
For example, what would happen if Blackrock or some other massively capitalized firm allocated a relatively small amount of <$1B to buy a majority of all ICP (or even somewhat higher to account for upward price pressure)? What would become of the IC in that scenario without fully decentralized human choice embedded into the Ethos?
Yeah, so the basic point would be for the NNS to clearly set basic important needs like “decentralization” as priorities. Also, telling token holders they can trust the NNS not to break tokenomic promises.
If a company like Blackrock did take over the network, then either they’d need to update to ethos to say something like (to enrich Blackrock shareholders) or break the Ethos. Either way, have an existing Ethos defined prior to that situation means the ecosystem will get a clear signal that something within the NNS has shifted and/or is broken. Signals like this are useful and important tools.
Thanks for engaging, @aiv. Decentralization as an Ethos priority would be good, but it doesn’t mean a lot if it is neither defined nor enforceable. I’m actually not even suggesting a change to the current informal Ethos. I am just suggesting to make it more well defined and enforceable when worst case scenarios are at stake.
The only significant “tokenomic promises” that would be in danger of being “broken” by my suggestion would be DFinity’s dictatorial vote as an organization, which could still be cast indirectly via the atomized votes of DFinity employees in certain fundamental governance proposals like “Ethos”. This category of proposal should be extremely rare. My suggestion implicitly assumes that DFinity would not have a major objection, since the ultimate goal is to preserver censorship / centralization resistance, which they have emphatically supported in the past.
Unfortunately, the fact remains that the NNS is currently very exposed to a hostile takeover by a centralized organization (or government) for what amounts to a very small amount of money to many of those organizations. Censorship resistance should also include centralization resistance, since centralization always implies eventual censorship. Perhaps there are better ideas to address this risk than the one that I tentatively outlined. I am just brainstorming here.
I think this is a very important statement for a trustworthy ethos.
2 Likes
Hello everyone!
This proposal will go live Sunday night, then I’ll host one final Twitter live on Monday morning for anyone who still has any questions:
Here’s the summary:
Here’s the full proposal outline:
1 Like