Neurons that vote via following should receive less than neurons who vote without following. Or rather neurons which do not follow should receive a bonus (similar to age bonus)
The amount of bonus should increase until there is some adequate amount of independent voting perhaps which number % of votes are independent should be picked by neurons and can change over time. If the % is above this number than bonus begins to decrease.
So someone who created 10 or 20 neurons should manually vote with each one of his neurons ? What about a company or a non profit organisations which would have hundreds of neurons ? It is unsustainable. Some of the most active members of ICP, among them : Dfinity members, have a lot of neurons for x or y reason.
Wha is the logic behind this?
I disagree. Following other neurons could be because you believe those neurons have a well defined and consistent criteria. This option has value. Encouraging people to vote manually may force them to take random decisions on many governance proposals because they do not have time to discuss and understand them.
Yeah…this undermines the entire principle and purpose of liquid democracy.
If anything we should be rewarding people with Multi-followees and diverse followers.
ie. Each topic allows 20 Followees, There are 8 topics, You only vote if >50 of your followers vote so you have to follow reliable followers. Get a bonus for each diverse followee you follow, up to 160 diverse followers. (maybe this doesn’t work well for some of the topics that are just administrative.)
Following is almost a convenience feature. People can, and will, vote the way someone else votes because they trust them to have good opinions and want to throw more resources behind those opinions. That’s not something you can stop from happening. Make it negatively financially impactful to do it through the NNS interface, and all you’ll see change is whether it’s done with a Bash script instead.
Think adversarially.
This issue can be solved by also rewarding a Bonus for earlier voting
People voting independently undermines democracy? Doesn’t compute
In theory people who hold a stake in a system should not just randomly vote so the the bonus should be such that at the margin no one will take the time to manually vote randomly.
Also there isn’t any proof that these neurons we follow aren’t already making “random” choices today. What we do know is that based on very short term market feedback we are in a downward price trend (but so is the rest of crypto), and that we haven’t broken out of being ranked around #35 in market cap for a whole which implies that the decisions we are making are no better then any other coins.
Given a series of random choices as long as there is market price feedback a series of “bad” random choices will cause price to go down over the long term which will mean that some actors making random and/or bad choices will lose money and likely leave. New actors will join the system who perhaps may be less likely to make random or bad choices. if there is any correlation between rational thinking of governance and long term market price of a good/service then those will be rewarded.
Perhaps it should be that followers should pay a small fee to whom they follow for the service they get. Or that if too many followers follow the same ultimate neuron then those followers should get hit with a centralization penalty…
That’s a UX issue that you bring up nothing to do with the theoretical case for keeping everyone from following a few neurons
Nns votes to give a bonus for voting earlier after a brief wait period