Wow, I’m just reading your proposal now. We have thought very similarly on this, I think my proposal provides a practical way to do this: Multi-stage Governance Proposals, Starting w/ Stage 0 and Stage 1
2 Likes
Haha yes they are nearly identical, glad you came to a similar conclusion!
Feel free to take some of the ideas from my proposal and incorporate them in with yours, I’d actually rather someone like you end up submitting the end proposal b/c of your reputation in the community.
To solve the financial incentives for passing governance proposals (our solutions just help with visibility and advertisement), I recommend reading through this proposal.
This proposal actually stems from some earlier ideas in this community discussion, where I had the idea for proposals that hit the support threshold to be released live to the NNS at a beginning of the following week in order to allow voters to have some control of their own individual voting schedules, which would in turn promote more manual voting and time for people to do their own due dilligence on proposals.
3 Likes
From a UI/UX perspective I would like to see:
-
a neuron scoring system. A high quality neuron will have a high score, i.e. historical proposals from this neuron has passed at a high rate and vice versa. The score should also depict how many proposals a neuron has made, how many of these has passed, how many has been turned down and maybe how high pass rate and turn down rate has been on average.
-
indicate if a neuron is submitting a proposal for the first time
-
drill down in historical proposals from a specific neuron
-
more ideas?
All these type of filtering and sorting tools to slice and dice would be great from a voter perspective imo.
Thanks for you thoughts and ideas regarding neuron visibility, but I wonder how different that is from just using the internet computer dashboard to look up a neuron.
(I believe this link is for the ICDevs neuron)
The NNS team could consider integrating IC dashboard links into the NNS, but then you’re coupling those two services (what happens if the IC dashboard goes down, like ic.rocks did last year).
It’s important to realize that “high quality” and scoring is subjective - I don’t think we should penalize neurons if they had ideas that were previously unpopular. Every new proposal is a new idea and a fresh slate, but one can still see how the neuron voted in the past.
@justmythoughts let me clarify.
Nuron voting history <> Neuron proposal history. One could use the internet computer dashboard as you propose, but for the sake of simplicity, I would argue that it would be wise to have the overview easy accessible in the NNS.
I also agree with the fact that a high-quality neuron is subjective, but I am not referring to penalisation here. What I am proposing is rather statistical by nature. Generally speaking - the number of total proposals, number of passed proposals and number of rejected proposals simply gives you a direct glimpse of how a specific neuron has “performed” historically. I am simply suggesting metrics to add to a filtering tool. If the proposal from @lastmjs gets traction we would still need tools to identify the proposals that we want to transition from stage 0 to stage 1 without having to read throw each and every proposal. Given many proposals (where many will be spam) we need to find a way for quicker/easier identification of the proposals that are of “not too low quality” → high “quality”. First-time proposers should of course also be considered.
I believe an MVP for stage 0 and stage 1 voting should first be agreed upon and after that discussion around tools/traits to actually filter out relevant proposals should come later. To dismantle spam one needs to incentive people for doing right and that reward needs to be greater than other voting options because people will always maximise rewards by nature. How to solve that is however much easier said than done!
1 Like
This is good. We just need to make it so incubating proposals are hidden by default
In the context of the recent antisemitic spam proposal that was just submitted to the NNS, that all voters are now forced to view and vote upon or face loss of voting rewards, I’d like to resurface this proposal.
It would be fairly easy for a malicious interest to spam the NNS with such proposals to make a mockery of the current user experience that forces voters to see and vote upon every single proposal (including governance proposals) that hits the NNS.
The goals of this proposal are:
I’m open to alternative solutions that protect voters from being mandated to vote on every proposal, no matter how unpopular it is. As ICP receives more attention, we need to think hard now about how scaling the viewing and voting of NNS proposals will work so that this abuse does not continue.
Due to the content of the proposal, for many this is already is a more serious problem than the original spam issue, which was an embarrassment to the ICP community.
2 Likes
It would be great if this kind of mitigation strategy could be implemented for spam that is submitted for advertisement or attention. Some proposals should definitely not make it past the min threashold.
1 Like
I think this is a smart idea if the incubation duration do not delay progress of potential or authentic projects and if other parameters other deterrent parameters can be met before Incubation.