Proposal to encourage governance and decentralization

Governance
,
1

This idea occurred to me, I don’t know if it could be debated.
I am not an expert on the subject and excuse me if I mess up due to ignorance, but if we want to increase decentralization and participation in governance, why not widely reward the neuron that proposes a proposal that is finally accepted and implemented by the NNS, those rewards can then be divided evenly by the followers’ ceded voting power (voting power) given to that neuron through liquid democracy.

The extraordinary reward, being amount pre-established by the NNS (from unassigned ICPs), would encourage not only the appointment of new neurons, but also their active participation in governance. In addition, since the reward is a fixed amount to be distributed, the neurons with less voting power (for different reasons) would be more attractive to the followers since, in the case of proposing and implementing a proposal, there would be more rewards to be distributed discouraging the accumulation of power and encouraging decentralization.

Obviously, this at the same time would encourage the active action of the community to look for the right partner periodically, discouraging passive voting and the stagnation of power that leads to apathy and corruption.
for example, before creating a given Governance proposal, a contest of proposals will be held with a certain duration so that the community has time to develop on a certain convenient topic. The winner decided by Nns would upload their proposal to vote to be implemented. if it is implemented then there is a prize. in this way we would squeeze the greatest potential of governance and community intelligence

2

I think the issues here is that, while it may seem positive in theory, it’ll be corrupted over time. Basically this paves the road for “proposing for profit”.

Perhaps once the NNS is more decentralized this wouldn’t be an issue, but right now this would basically amount to a few big neurons like DFINITY choosing people to gift newly minted ICP to. It they pick the same people over & over, it’ll also be a bad look and make people upset.

I have a list of proposals I’d like to submit, but I want people to know I’m not doing it for profit or rewards, just for the good of the NNS.

Now, code-based proposals (outside of motion proposals) there may be some interesting opportunities there. That’s because it takes a lot of work to right code worthy of updating the network, and there would be a functional change implemented if the proposal got adopted.

However, even then I don’t think there needs to be usage of “abandoned ICP”. What if instead of keeping the maturity they’d earn from voting, neurons could choose gift the maturity of that vote to the proposer (who wrote the code changing proposal) to provide extra support? This way the supply of ICP is unchanged, and free market dynamics are maintained. This could also give DFINITY a way to use their maturity to hire outsiders to help with network admin, instead of needing to write all the code for that stuff internally.

Like you could vote:

  • Yes (keep maturity)
  • Yes (gift maturity)
  • No
2 Likes
3

I understand your point. but if we were able to channel the suggestions of proposals at the objective convenience of the governance through public contests and voting through the nns. we would solve opportunism.

4

I can think of something better. I want to make it clear that I would not touch the current system of governance.

In the interests of not increasing inflation with the NNS minting rewards from neurons that have not voted, all the ICP of rejected proposals coming from Spam or proposals rejected by the community could go to a pot of rewards for the proposals that are accepted by the community.
This would not change the current ROI of rewards nor would the NNS increase the inflation from coining “unassigned” ICP from rewards from neurons that have not voted.

What continue with this?

on the one hand discouraging absurd, opportunism or spam proposals and encouraging active participation in convenient smart solutions at any given time, and decentralization on the other.

Suppose that the pot of ICP minted from the proposals not accepted by the NNS is 1000 ICP at a given time, then conveniently a neuron X finds an improvement or solves a problem, the neurone X proposes to the NNS and its proposal is approved.
Now suppose that Neuron X has a voting power of 100 ICPs, of which 10 ICPs are from itself and the other 90 ICPs come from 9 other neurons that follow it with 10 ICPs each.
Those 1000 Reward ICPs from the pot would be assigned to the maturity of all those neurons via Neuron X with a 10% weighting for each of them, that is, 100 ICPs for each one.

what can we expect with this?

The extraordinary reward, being amount pre-established by the NNS (from rejected proposals), would encourage not only the appointment of new neurons, but also their active participation in governance. In addition, since the reward is a fixed amount to be distributed, the neurons with less voting power (for different reasons) would be more attractive to the followers since, in the case of proposing and implementing a proposal, there would be more rewards to be distributed discouraging the accumulation of power and encouraging decentralization.

Obviously, this at the same time would encourage the active action of the community to look for the right partner periodically, discouraging passive voting and the stagnation of power that leads to apathy and corruption.

for example, before creating a given Governance proposal, a contest of proposals will be held with a certain duration so that the community has time to develop on a certain convenient topic. The winner decided by Nns would upload their proposal to vote to be implemented. if it is implemented then there is a prize. in this way we would squeeze the greatest potential of governance and community intelligence.

Make it clear that those neurons that vote independently following or not a winning neuron of the proposal, will also take their reward +~ predictable by the current tokenomics.

5

I agree ! People shouldn’t be rewarded for proposal. Community here for the Tech or community here for the Money will change everything.

1 Like
6

Literally why is everyone trying to fiddle with tokenomics, finding “lost ICP” in areas to use elsewhere.

How can anyone trust the token when we keep wanting to change how it works every week. We’ve been arguing against an NNS Treasury for weeks now, and the topic just keeps popping up in other forms. The wider IC community hates it.

Let’s try to make actual value, rather than just trying to find creative ways to shuffle existing value around withing the system.

7

I’m not talking about creating a NNS treasury, I’m talking about encouraging decentralization and active participation in governance. Without generating more inflation. Think about it

8

It’s the same slippery slope and basic concept. The NNS mints ICP which currently wouldn’t exist (or in this case keeps it from burning), then disburses it out for various reasons.

I’m not saying the NNS could never do these types of actions, I just want us to stop and set an Ethos/principles in pace before we expand it’s usage, complexity, and powers like this.

We can’t even agree on what the NNS is and what it’s purpose is. Perhaps we should tackle that before we start deciding what it should fund. Once people are earning money from it, there will be too much influence from special interests to accurately define principles for it.