Proposal Discuss posts

Governance
1

I would like to explain more about optional legal reviewer:

1. Why it can enable decentralized content moderation

  1. it is only built on the front end
  2. It allows appeals
  3. It does not force everyone to enable
  4. Its censorship rules are set by the NNS

Since NNS has not encountered such attacks at present, I think how to solve the oligarch list and how to improve proposal participation is more important. Otherwise, NNS simply cannot formulate decentralized censorship rules.

Preventing most spam proposals only requires solving the reward problem and offensive proposalsļ¼ŒNo need to increase governance complexity.

If you think the proposal must be discussed in the forum, please write it in the review rules
If you think that the proposal cannot contain XX content, or follow the link to XX address, please write it in the review rules

Beyond that, are there any proposals that need to be blocked?

Periodic Confirmation of Neuron Followees can fix reward bug

But it cannot be implemented immediately, it needs to wait for development. And after the development is completed, you need to wait 6 months to see the effect, if it is passed, it is also necessary to immediately reset the current follower state to solve the current problems that need to be solved immediately.

10 ICP rejection costs do not fix anything.

  1. Two Motion Proposals a Day to Double Your Earningsļ¼ŒIf someone stakes more than 60,000 ICP, there is still an incentive to initiate spam proposals

  2. Although the NNS has not encountered any offensive proposals at the moment, 10 ICPs are unable to block any malicious proposals

the rejection cost of 10 ICPs not only fails to solve any problems, but also increases the risk of NNS centralization

2

The proposal for Periodic Confirmation of Neuron Followees should not take 6 months to be effective if it is implemented as written. I expect it will take 3 months total including 2 months for the code changes and 1 month for people to confirm their Followee selections. This assumes it takes Dfinity 2 months to implement the code changes like it did for implementation of proposal 34485.

Have you considered a more formal approach to making proposals on your ideas for solving the spam proposal issue? Why not let the community deliberate for a week before you submit to the NNS? Why not give your proposal a title other than ā€œtestā€ and present it without soliciting more funds for the purpose of submitting more test proposals? Some of your ideas are good and Iā€™d like to see you be more successful at convincing the governing body to give them consideration.

1 Like
3

As it seems those with larger holdings seem to be inspired to create problems may I suggest that a percentage fee of their stake would more a deterrent, 10% of 60,000 ICP where as some one with 60 ICP @ 10 percent.