Proposal to fix governance proposal rewards at 75% on a daily basis

[justmythoughts]

@bjoernek Thanks for your insightful feedback!

To respond to a few of your points

@bjoernek

What happens on a day with no governance proposals? (apologies if this is already specified and I missed it)

@justmythoughts

What this Proposal does not do

• This proposal does not remove the incentives to spam the NNS for visibility or advertising
• This proposal does not give less or greater governance rewards to voters if there are more governance proposals submitted that reach completion on a given day. The governance rewards remain constant, regardless if there are 0 or 100 governance proposals that reach completion on that day.

@bjoernek

Long-term thinking: Neutral.

@justmythoughts

How does this affect me as a voter

• Nothing changes - keep voting on governance proposals and you will receive the same rewards as if one proposal was submitted each day (75% of your rewards will from governance proposals)
• You will receive rewards proportional to the (# governance votes participated in / # governance votes total) for proposals that are completed during that same day.

I would argue that this proposal does have long-term positives. Because voters receive a fixed amount of ICP (according to the inflation rate at the time) regardless of the number of proposals that are introduced on a given day, voters are not incentivized to approve proposals in order to allow proposal creators to submit more proposals without having to pay a reject cost (i.e. the whales that have been supporting ysyms’ proposals).

Also, unlike 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, this proposal ensures that the inflation rate of ICP stays on schedule according to the tokenomics parameters specified, allowing for a predictable inflation rate.

@bjoernek

bad content - Neutral.

This proposal is a standalone solution for removing the financial or “rewards skew” incentives tied to creating spam proposal. I recommend that this proposal be passed in tandem with one of the other proposals that remove the advertisement/visibilitiy or “bad content” incentives for submitting spam proposals:

• Multi-stage Governance Proposals, Starting w/ Stage 0 and Stage 1
• [Proposal] Introduce an incubation period and minimum support threshold for governance proposals
• Proposal to restrict rewards qualification to a threshold

@bjoernek

As already brought up by you, how should we calibrate the splitting parameter (75%)? Under which circumstances (and driven by which criteria) should we change it over time?

Great question!

In the spirit of changing as little variables as possible at a time, I chose 75% as it was the original intention behind the change to governance proposal weights introduced earlier this year via Proposal: 34485 - ICP Dashboard. This change was accompanied by a 30 day campaign to incentivize voter participation in which @wpb submitted 1 proposal per day to the NNS. Having 1 governance proposal per day submitted to the NNS (in total) meant that in a given day roughly 75% of staked rewards came from governance proposals.

This rewards percentage was provably shown to increase voter participation in the NNS, and so I believe it makes for a good percentage constant starting place.

Due to the recent spamming by ysyms, voters are receiving ~86% of their voting rewards from governance, yet the overall voter participation has not noticeably changed since the end of @wpb’s proposal campaign.

This shows that there’s diminishing returns in terms of the how much voting power will increase as voter rewards increase. I therefore disagree with the feedback and assessment with respect to “Decentralized and Active” that this change will have any meaningful impact on voter participation.

@bjoernek

Decentralized & active: Slightly negative as voters will get the same governance rewards regardless of whether there are 10 or 1 governance proposals to be assessed.

In fact, I would argue that with fewer spam proposals to clutter things up, this will incentivize voters to take a more active role in their voting.