[Proposal] Testing NNS front end proposal form | Motion (nnsproposal.icp.xyz)

What is this?

I’ve created a Dapp that lets anyone create an NNS proposal through a convenient online form. To test that it is working correctly, I will be using it to create a live Governance motion NNS proposal within 24hrs.


A few weeks ago DFINITY put out a request for volunteers from the community to create more sample dapps. I reached out with the idea for creating a sample dapp which showed an example of how a canister could integrate with the NNS. They gave me the signal to move forward, and I decided to make a dapp that made creating NNS proposals easier and more accessible for non-technical users.

Right now creating an NNS proposal is a technical challenge, so it’s only accessible to developers who are familiar with the CLI. For the NNS to be open, we need to be inclusive to non-technical members of the IC ecosystem.

Next Steps

After a successful test of a governance motion proposal, I’ll make another proposal to test the “register known neuron” proposal type. Then I’ll be adding detailed documentation and submitting my work to DFINITY!

What I Need From You

I would deeply appreciate it if you would vote to adopt this proposal, because otherwise I’ll be charged a 10 ICP rejection fee. Since a functional test is the only way I can verify that my dapp works correctly and I’m making something for the benefit of the ecosystem, I don’t think this proposal qualifies as spam.

By voting to adopt this proposal, you are showing your support for this project, which is focused on making NNS proposal submissions more accessible for everyone.


Found this post via the proposal. Must say this is something that was quite needed. Amazing contribution!

1 Like

Thank you for continuing to make the IC more accessible. I like this idea and applaud your initiative. I have a question on how, or what this would suggest for making spam proposals easier to produce. I 100% am on-board with the accessibility aspect. I just want to understand what it would mean for the bigger picture logistically. I know the community is very passionate about the removal of spam.

1 Like

Honestly, this could unfortunately make spam easier by removing the technical barrier. However, since the technical barrier is inherently unfair to begin with, I still feel this should exist. Spam is a larger issue which needs it’s own solution, restricting non-technical participants shouldn’t be part of that.

One thing worth noting is that the 10 ICP fee is non-refundable even if your proposal does get adopted. This is because it needs to be added to the stake of the neuron to cover the 10 ICP proposal fee that gets burned if your proposal is rejected. There’s just no other way around this constraint.

This means it’s still not exactly the same as making the proposal manually from the CLI using your own neuron, but at least it’s just as expensive for spammers to make proposals as it would be if the did it manually.


For the purposes of your experiment, I will vote yes on it so you can at the least test its functionality of it and not deal with the reject costs.

this is a good note. They may then be able to address the spam issue the same with this feature and still leave/ make it more accessible

1 Like

I particularly appreciate this whole heartedly

1 Like

Now, what if someone comes along right now as it stands and just spams the heck out of the NNS with several useless proposals but does so to make a point at the larger issue of spam and now has an even more accessible way to do so? I know some people are willing to spend the money to do just this.

Then it also removes the ability to even discuss the proposal as you would on this forum and see it on the NNS with some of your other proposals. It seems to have created several proposals and I’m unsure of which you are requesting to be used for the “please accept for test function purposes so I do not lose ICP” because then you go on to ask Dom to just stop Tweeting as a proposal which opens up the spam issue we are talking about right off the bat.

I feel the intent is great, but this could open pandora’s box of hell if someone takes advantage. Also, because they do not have to have “proof of stake” I mean I would love to hear this properly debated

So I personally only created the first proposal, the other two were made by other people in the community.

That said, as per my disclaimer there’s no way to know for sure who published what.

A dev (who now manages a known neuron) once spammed the NNS as you mentioned.

My dapp removes accessibility barriers (which therefore amplifies things), but it doesn’t create new issues which didn’t exist before. At this point the code is public, so even if I did take it down anyone could simply recreate it.

Even if I did add restrictions (such as integrating MODCLUB or something), someone else could simply launch their own version which omits the restrictions.

The fix really needs to be something within the NNS. We need the proposal submission process to remain both accessible and open, while also addressing the spam implications.

I think this topic is bigger than my dapp, though perhaps the existence of my dapp makes it’s exploration more urgent. We should probably create a new topic in the forum to really start talking through the next steps for the NNS roadmap in light of the reduced NNS Proposal barrier.


I would agree. I am glad this was created though. Looking forward to seeing it progress.