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.
3 Likes
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
strategy.
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…
3 Likes
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
Ok, you can vote here then (from 1 to 30 ICP)
1 Like
I understand what you are saying and I agree that the proposal reject fee would ideally be low. I’m sure we will get there some day after significant changes occur and I will be fully supportive. I think we have a problem that needs to be dealt with now and I’m simply proposing we use the only mitigation tactic that is readily available today. I don’t expect everyone to agree.
I also want to point out that the proposal reject fee is not a punishment for proposals that pass. That fee is only retained by the NNS if a proposal is rejected. In my opinion, higher proposal reject fees offer a new opportunity to incentivize a proposer to experiment with the NNS. If they are willing to embrace the crowdfunding concept and they pursue their proposal for the right reasons, then they will be able to keep that proposal reject fee when the proposal passes since it is locked in their personal neuron. I think it is an under recognized opportunity for experimentation and
incentives.
1 Like
Thank you. I really like these polls because every individuals have the same voting power, 1. So it shows much better what the majority of people want other than what the whales want.
We have a much better picture now.
Thanks again
2 Likes
Maybe we should review why there was a 1 ICP rejection cost in the first place, it was designed to avoid spam proposals. It’s a temporary solution by itself, the question it doesn’t solve is should a normal proposal that doesn’t go through deserve the same penalty as a spam/offensive proposal?I don’t think it should be
Some of my proposals are obvious rubbish proposals, but I can add my point to a reasonable proposal, how should we differentiate? So how to distinguish between spam/offensive proposals and low-quality/unreasonable proposals is the problem that should be solved. (As for the spam proposal button, it seems to me that it is likely to be used maliciously, and it still does not prevent the broadcast of proposal content.)
Back to this temporary solution. In my opinion 100ICP can’t stop me from launching proposal 79944, because in my opinion it is unbelievable for DFINITY employees to say “if don’t trust a centralized company do leave IC”, no country will admit that a that must trust DFINITY‘s Web3.0/Metaverse. Building a public chain with this concept is bound to fail. Building a public blockchain with this concept is deceiving me and the market. So even before 79944, the proposal rejection cost has come to 100ICP, I will still initiate this garbage proposal, the difference is that I will write more opinions and nonsense. Of course if the rejection cost was raised to 1000ICP I would shut up completely
6 Likes
I really enjoy your participation in this ecosystem @ysyms. You are often very thought provoking. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Now if I could just get some crowdfunding since we know your endpoint for titrating away the advertisement spam. 
Seriously though, I actually suspected 100ICP would not have discouraged you from 79944 since it was done out of a strong sense of frustration. Everyone has a price they are willing to pay on principle and to be honest no proposal reject fee will stop spam for everyone all the time.
My hope is that we can start using the proposal reject fee as intended and at least mitigate most spam proposals. It may take more spam before that happens. 
You make a good point that perhaps there should be a two tiered proposal reject fee. A higher fee for true spam and a lower fee for proposals that are simply rejected.
2 Likes
At least 79944 is worth
The spam proposals for more reward submitted many times, so these caused 70015 raised, it’s reasonable even i don’t like it.
So far, 79944 is the only spam proposal for advertisement . I think we need waiting for more similar intended proposal submitted(maybe 3 times and above), then we can consider to make a mitigate spam proposal.
For Now, I don’t think we need to do any mitigate solution but try to work out a permanent solution.
1 Like
I agree personally. I think we should work/ focus on a permanent solution over a temp. fix. Especially, with how there is not much other spam coming elsewhere. I completely understand and agree it needs to be addressed however temporary solutions that muddy the waters aren’t ideal. For that reason, I’m out of this particular proposal.
I really appreciate and want to thank @ysyms for joining and giving actual input. However, I do want to argue that right now, as good of intentions as you may have, there has to be a better way. Personally, I understand what it is like to be this frustrated. However, we have to come up with a better solution than bullying (for a lack of a better way of saying it) our way into being heard. It will end up turning us into what we set out to destroy, and it ends up being less productive. Moving forward, you could use this clear talent and ingenuity to help come up with a permanent solution for something you’re clearly very passionate about.
I agree with @coteclaude. This thread speaks to a lot of the toxic communication patterns between community members that we all need to seriously consider working on. Especially, with how @wpb was the placeholder for a lot of aggressive feelings that really are not directed at them.
I know this has very little substance in a solution itself, but I just wanted to go on record and say that this is also what I speak to with how we communicate as a community with each other both internally and on your public feeds.
3 Likes
Last thoughts
I think moving the Governance Topics to Discord under the ICP option. This will Expose and Market the IC in a public forum that anyone can view but will need to purchase ICO from a coin reseller to be able to create a neuron for voting.
Personally I think it would be better off than in the Dfinity forum where you get accountants saying they can fix the voting with 1+1=3 this week and next 1+1=-3 and then there are the programmers who think the neurons owners should handover their investment on the NNS to pay programmers for further project builds while billions have already been paid to them. I, on the other hand, have invested into the NNS and way behind in a return.
1 Like
If it goes 100icp or more, then every spam proposal will get an adopt vote from and every other will get a reject
It seems that we all agree on something:
as I understand this is what originated the spam proposal
1 Like
I’ve outlined this solution and provided source code changes here:
The. NNS dapp code may need to be different now but the code changes to implement this are trivial.
3 Likes
Thanks for your reminder. great to see your proposal 
Yes, I don’t like any solution that suppresses proposals, we just need to control the reach of spam proposals!
IC is at a very early stage and what we need most now is public participation, not stifling ideas 
This proposal has been in deliberation for 7 days. A prerequisite for moving forward with this proposal was crowdfunding. Since no donations have been received, I am retracting this proposal and I have deleted the donation account information from the original post. I will not be submitting this proposal to the NNS at this time. I appreciate everyone who participated in the deliberation on this topic in a diplomatic and intellectually honest way. Thank you.
4 Likes
Now, have you asked yourself why people do not participate in the crowdfunding and why they may never participate? May I give you some hint about it?
Everyone that have ICP lock in the NNS are investors.
First, with all the frequent and unpredictable changes to the NNS and rewards mechanics, it is very scary for investors now to buy more and lock ICP. Personally, I do not buy and lock anymore ICP. Smart investors don’t invest in those such unstable system. Now I see how scary some proposals can be for investors. I could have never predicted something like that.
Then, as an example, if someone have paid his ICP 50$ a year ago, the proposal for him would be 30 ICP x 50$ - 1500.00$. Not the 30 icp x 6$ (180$) as it is now.
And something else. Let say you really believe ICP will reach 100$ in a couple of years. Paying 30 icp become a 3000 $ expense then.
The reason many people will not buy and stake ICP anymore is not because the price went down from 500$ to 6$. it is because of the unstability of the system.
I know you see this as a system that need to evolve and change.
Many of us see it as if a system need that much of frequent and major changes, then it was badly designed at first and not ready to be deployed.
So, for all the reasons above, I expect most to all crowfunding to fail and also a big barrier for more ICP to be locked. The initial goal of 90% of circulation to be locked will never be reached.
If the system was stable, I would compound everyday. Now, I take the rewards and sell.
I invite people thay have business experience to think about that.
There is nothing worst than having your money lock for 8 years and have all the rules changing so easily and so often.
2 Likes
I have to agree, with all the accountants and programmers constantly making the same changes over and over, don’t see any results, I don’t believe in them, I have decided to leave my compound grow till I see that it is time to take the rewards and run before I lose the lot.
Nothing wrong with the project.
It seems spam is here to stay, rewards are not for investors, accountants to test theories that have failed, for programmers projects or inflation coupled with decreasing rewards for the future.
At this stage I’m not interested in the CF or SMS.
But I do have more money to invest, not sure where.