Proposal to covert from system based reward to voter based reward; to implement an accept quorum mechanism; and to return the reject cost to 1 ICP

I really appreciate seeing a full solution like this in a proposal that tackles all the issues we’re seeing right now. Thanks for all the time you put into writing this up and looking into the code.

I have a similar proposal idea in terms of fixing governance rewards, but I also really like the idea here that rewards which passive voters “miss” by not voting aren’t redistributed to those who do vote. It therefore removes the incentive for some to profit from voter suppression (i.e. by passing an enormous amount of proposals or resetting followees randomly). Well done! - I see this as an improvement that would tackle a problem we have not yet encountered, but could possibly encounter in the future.

The one issue I do see with this is that now we’re messing with the ICP inflation rate - DFINITY must have some reasoning behind their targeted inflation rate schedule design, so here and now might be a good time to provide an explanation before the voters potentially change it up @diegop.

Not to go into a price discussion, but a lower inflation rate could be a good thing since we’re currently seeing so much more ICP supply hit the exchanges than there is demand for that ICP. I don’t have any issues with a lower inflation rate and having that inflation rate be dependent on the amount of ICP staked in the NNS, although staked whales who are in it for the rewards might not look as favorably upon this proposal for that reason.

1 Like