My apologies. It looks like I misunderstood your previous comment. I didn’t realize you were saying you follow the vote of the neuron that submits the proposal. That’s a pretty clever way to get an early vote by following. The neuron that submits the proposal is always the first vote and always votes to adopt. The proposal is built with automated scripts and the changes have gone through a lot of testing, but it’s still interesting that Dfinity will sometimes vote to reject their own proposals. I suspect it’s because they have people reviewing it after the proposal is live.
1 Like
Typically the team responsible for e.g. the canister reviews proposals before they are made. Once the proposal is submitted it gets reviewed by ‘everyone’
2 Likes
Is there an advantage to voting early? I didn’t realise that submitting a proposal automatically casts a ‘yes’ vote from the proposer - is that correct? (I’ve never submitted a proposal)
Out of interest @krzysztofzelazko do you feel incentivised to vote early? I’m just curious what you would see the downside being of holding back and voting after the community has had a chance to perform due diligence (at least build verification).
The fact that you’re followed by another named neuron that could acquire a potentially large amount of voting power (as far as I gather) from the related dapp, has the potential to give you more voting power and responsibility (now and/or in the future) than you might have appreciated 
On a related note, I just noticed your GeekFactory proposal - Proposal: 127702 - ICP Dashboard (internetcomputer.org)
Are you part of the GeekFactory team?
Have you seen this site, I think you will like it: vpGeek - Internet Computer Voting Power Dashboard
You can see how the voting power of named neurons affects proposals, You’ll also see Krzysztof’s neuron with Rakeoff following it has about 0.003% of voting power impact on proposals.
In contrast to that, Dfinity and its followees usually impact votes by about 27%. That’s a voting power of around 250 million. Most likely every vote Dfinity could sway the result. Also not all Dfinity neurons are public too, so it’s probably even more.
If the network is going to get more decentralised we need more named neurons, and I think your approach of public scrutiny and questioning is not really helping - I just haven’t seen much constructive feedback from you on how the named neurons can improve or who they should follow (you recommended CodeGov to me only after I asked). Rather, it looks like your poking the named neurons with loaded questions so that they can admit to some guilt of not verifying something?
If we want more participation we need to make it easier for named neurons to verify things and vote. There needs to be easy to use tools with user interfaces and constructive feedback. We shouldn’t be using loaded questions to get them to explain themselves.
1 Like
It’s helping me, that’s why I’m asking the questions. They’re not rhetorical, and they’re not intended with any malice, as mentioned. I’ve been appreciating many of Krzysztof’s responses (here and on other threads)
No, I’m trying to drive some constructive conversation about how, as a community, we can encourage more robust decentralisation moving forward. At the moment I’m trying to understand if incentives are misaligned somehow.
I agree. You may be interested in the topic I posted all about this the other day →
1 Like