Proposal to Mitigate NNS Advertisement Spam - a Temporary Solution

Personally, I am going to vote for the proposal made by @skilesare mentioned above. I think that a temporary solution might not be needed when we have a few solid long-term solutions available, and they will make the user experience more enjoyable.

Maybe you are wrong ---- Proposal 48623 is indeed a good proposal as a whole.
A proposal is good because it is passed, not that a proposal is passed because it is good.
No one can define what is good or bad; only the voting results of NNS can define what is good or bad.
Of course, different voting rules will make different definitions of what is good or bad. But the truth is that there are no perfect voting rules according to modern social choice theory (i.e., Arrow’s impossibility theorem).


You are right. Maybe I am wrong. But maybe I am right too. Only time will tell. Some proposals will take some time before being proven wrong or right.
As much as I follow the SEC and IRS stance and evolution on cryptos and rewards, I can only think that this was a bad proposal that may put some investors in a bad situation with their taxes. Again, time will tell. But we cannot deny that there is an important risk. If this happen, it will create a crisis for sure. Not to FUD but being realistic. Don’t play with IRS or SEC. Their stick is much bigger and hit much harder than our.

One thing for sure, that proposal was not following Dfinity guide on proposals which one criteria is the need to benefit to the IC. That proposal is not benefiting the IC. It benefit some, and only some, individuals and Dfinity foundation, not the network.

1 Like

Isn’t it easier to just add a “second” button? Not seconded proposals are “hidden”. As long as you can submit a proposal it’s easy to raise awareness.

Then you can control in the UI the details, eg “see proposals seconded only by Dfinity”, “see proposals seconded by X% threshold”.

I don’t get why so much discussion and this issue is still unsolved.

1 Like

Why not 150icp?
Or 300?
Or even 1000?
Add a 2nd button in every proposal of
Spam. Not Spam
If the proposal is spam by voting decision then neuron is banned forever and 0 rewards for everyone.

In my opinion more voting options in general are needed, regardless of the combination of solutions the community chooses to implement:

  • Abstain to make sure people who don’t feel they are informed enough and don’t want to delegate their vote can still get rewards

  • Spam so that malicious proposals can be more easily detected, filtered and deleted, for instance with Proposal to restrict rewards qualification to a threshold proposals without enough Yes votes would be less visible and that shouldn’t be the case, there should be a distinction between “I don’t support this” and “this is spam”. With a spam option it could also become possible to charge the rejection fee only if the proposal is considered as spam, incentivizing more people to participate in governance without fear of losing tokens, this would promote more named neurons submissions and a more active governance process.
    The NNS is the best tool we have to gather the community’s consensus, being able to use it even for apparently disliked proposals will give us a better idea on how much stakers actually support or dislike a proposal.

Because most changes that help solve the problem take time and resources to develop and implement. DFINITY resources are working on other projects and there are currently no incentives to enable the community to develop and implement the solution. There is only one mechanism build into the NNS that can help mitigate spam and that is the network economics proposal type that can be used to increase the proposal reject fee. Everything else takes time and resources.

That fee is the narrowly defined scope presented in this proposal. None of the other ideation that has occurred in this forum topic (even though I agree with some of it) is in scope here.

1 Like

I understand the concern, but I think 100 ICP for rejection is gatekeeping. The average user loses the ability to create a proposal, which is the opposite of decentralization.

How about keeping the 10 ICP rejection fee and adding a waiting period if a proposal is rejected? For example, if this ysyms person has a proposal rejected, they lose their 10 ICP and can’t create another proposal for 10 days.

Could they geta round it by posting 10 proposals at once? Sure, but then they lose all 100 ICP when the 10 are rejected AND they can’t propose again for 100 days (10 x 10).

All I want to say is, please don’t do that, I meant don’t raise the proposal reject fee to 100 ICP, all you need to do is just stay clam and not panic, imo, I meant just forget the crazy guy until you become crazy, moreover, burning some 10 ICP is good for the community anyway.

Anyone can be a named neuron. It’s not centralized at all no need to fear it.

It’s pretty clear not everyone should have a voice. @ysyms has proven this by abusing it.

1 Like

The IC was created by some of the brightest minds in existence.

In a hundred years people will look back at the blockchain renaissance the same way we look back at Einstein’s time, which was a Renaissance of natural science the likes of which we have yet to match.

Surely there are better ways to address spam than raising the cost to 100 ICP.

By raising the cost you are gatekeeping.

The SNS is already in the hands of gatekeepers, now this?

Someone like myself simply couldn’t afford to pay 100 ICP for a proposal. This is absolute ludicrous.

If this ends up a proposal on the NNS and passes, I will humbly part ways with the IC. I’d rather find a chain and community more in line with Web3 philosophy.

Thank you and take care,


I don’t think this would be too effective. What would stop a person with multiple neurons from circumventing these measures?

1 Like

For what is worth, a poll about the rejection fee value between 20 ICP and 80 ICP:

It seems that ~30 ICP is ok for most people, would you consider reducing the cost? @wpb

1 Like

creating a new neuron to propose is really easy.

1 Like

First, I want to say thank you for offering a counter proposal that stays within the narrow boundaries of my original proposal. I really appreciate the tactic you used to arrive at your recommendation. I am willing to accept your recommendation of 30 ICP. I will update the original proposal with this new proposal reject fee recommendation.

Second, it should be noted that, as stated in the original proposal, a prerequisite for me to submit this proposal is that it must be fully crowdfunded. So far, there have been no donations. Hence, I will not be making this proposal if it is not crowdfunded. I consider crowdfunding to be a reasonable method of validation that a proposal is worth making to a least a fraction of the governing body. In some ways, it’s like having the proposal “seconded” by others. If it does get crowdfunded, then the proposal will be to increase the proposal reject fee to 30 ICP based on your suggestion.

1 Like

Not everyone can be a named neuron. Not everyone wants to be.
Everyone should have a voice. @ysyms is indeed doing good to the community, and you just have a different opinion.
In fact, raising the rejection fee to 100 ICP is a crazy idea.
Maybe ICP is going in the wrong direction.

1 Like

Your poll is not very representative. You are not offering the option for NO RAISE.
Without that option, I did not vote.

1 Like

I haven’t said much in this thread, but I’ll note that I generally dislike “sticks” and prefer “carrots”. 10 ICP is already a hindrance to aggressive experimentation with the NNS. I’m staunchly against a higher amount. I’m doing all I can to get the threshold back to 1ICP because I think that is where we find the most experimentation and ability to find the best ideas.

I’m very against punishing neurons as it could be used as a weapon or threat in unanticipated ways. Instead, we should incentivize them to be well-behaved (Sybil is the real problem here as anyone can always spin up a fresh, anon neuron).

Punishments for Neurons discourage doxed participation in the same way that higher ICP fees discourage participation. They are just minus ideas when we should be thinking about win/win scenarios.

I’ve linked to what I think are better ideas that require very few code changes elsewhere on the thread and in other topics. The Threshold solution imposes a burden but not a penalty and it is a very low burden that should not be a deterrent for any reasonable NNS proposal.


This community is getting divided more and more. I now see on Twitter some strong supporters giving up, frustrated with the NNS and how this works. The 50% + 1 certainly lead to division, TMO.
The problem as to why it will be getting worst and worst is because we are locked in with our financial and cannot go away, like some people have asked. So looking at other blockchain is impossible if you had faith before in IC enough to lock some investment at first. Unlock my 8 years for 3 minutes and I would be the first one to leave you all alone. Believe me. No matter the lost.
Temporary fixes, try, fail, rinse and repeat is a very bad business strategy.
Having blockchain scientist managing taxes is bad business strategy
Having investors only voting on tech development is bad business strategy
Having blockchain developper creating an election system (NNS) is bad business
Can keep going like this… but will stop here.
For success, need a specialist team for each department so they take the right decision.
It is a free for all right now. Dfinity should take a pause and think about all this. Why so many people unhappy, frustrated, always seems to be fighting?
It has been 18 months now. NNS is getting worst at dividing people, not better. So, this is the first major flaw to fix.
Sad to see.

Temporary fixes, try, fail, rinse and repeat…


And will add to this that the NNS team is not too buzy to program permanent fixes. They have and are still spending tons of time on the ultra complicated tax modulation stuff where 49% of voters have voted against and has absolutely NO benefit to IC.
Clearly a lack of establishing the right priorities