Proposal to temporarily reduce governance proposal weight to 1

Governance
1

I’ve created a neuron to make a proposal to reduce the weighting of a governance proposal back to 1.

Objective: Eliminate the spam incentive on the NNS until a better solution can be implemented.

Proposal: Reduce the weight of governance proposals to 1 until September 1st 2022 at which point it will revert to 20.

Note: if we solve it sooner we can always vote to revoke this.

I’d like to raise the funds to submit this proposal. When the following neuron gets 10 ICP I’ll submit it. If it passes I’ll merge the neuron with the ICDevs neuron.

Send donations to: cf8ef4bccc3afe5ea8dfa172734ca8c4aa5ed8770b8cd703b2e37befac0a16bd

Neuron ID: 2648354259123105775

3 Likes
2

Why temporarily? What can change in the next couple months?

3

For now, reducing the governance proposal weight to 1 would eliminate the financial incentives to put forth spam proposals (given that the proposal reject cost is also 10 ICP).

In the next couple months we can then have more time to discuss and put forth longer-term fixes for DFINITY to implement that will remove both the financial and visibility (advertisement) incentives for spam.

For example, changes that remove both of these incentives might look something like this:

4

I like Proposal to incentivize the diversification of followees in the NNS but it will take time and effort to implement.

5

It’s a nice idea, but feel this is a pretty glaring flaw - especially for whales to set 10 lead neurons with fractional (<1 ICP), and then just have each of those lead neurons have a single followee.

We have to assume that if we erect a barrier and the incentive exists, developers will build bots and tools to dig under that barrier and game the system.


... But back to this specific proposal to reset governance proposal weights and rewards to 1 (as DFINITY originally had it) -> 100% would support this.
6

it is like adding fuel into fire

1 Like
7

Awesome. Thank you for taking the Initiative on this one. ICP incoming. I think 4 months is a good amount of time to get the input we need. Good thinking.

3 Likes
8

I’m theory it is all temporary. We can bit to change or reinstate at any time. Temporary here because the increased weight did significantly increase participation. We had a bump and I think it has leveled off. We have a new problem now. It is unlikely that participation will go down(I think) and im four months the world will be different and we may want to go from 45% to 75%.

1 Like
9

Just donated 3 ICP. Half way there.

3 Likes
10

Just sent you 2 ICP. Spending ICP knowing that I’m acting against my own short-term financial interests is a weird feeling. At least the funds are going to IC Devs if this thing passes :slight_smile:

2 Likes
11

Sorry guys, for me, this is a panic patch solution that, again, the outcome has not been taught in any way and the result may create other problems
The spammer have promised to make only 2 spams per day for 1 month. Let live with this for now.
If you try to pass this one, good chances the spammer would process all the value he has, maybe more and process 30, 40, more … proposals in 1 day before this proposal pass. That would create a mess.
Please do not panick.
It is quiet easy to predict.
The supply does not change, only the distribution for now.
Let’s take the right time to do the right things.
Only my opinion.
EDIT: I should have said 60,70 or more spams proposal may come quickly because of this panic proposal.

1 Like
12

Print the highest yield possible for the 8years community fund holders instead cuz we will eventually be the one who gonna spend the most neuron within the community to fuel the ecosystem :upside_down_face:

13

What do you think will happen if the weighting is reverted back? We went half a year with that weighting w/ out problem.

14

it’s like you rugging people confidence out of it and return the NNS back into the death governance system,

15

Can you explain? Where is the rug occurring and what is the death governance your describing?

19

Yeah…I’m not sure what you mean. 1 does not always equal 1 when you include second order consequences. Paying 2 to people paying attention who are looking for short term gains(they will sell right away) and 1 to holders not paying attention can result innover liquidation and driving the price down. Paying 1.5 and 1.5 will result in Less liquidation allowing the price to fall less. If you are 8 year gang there is much more upside in paying equal rewards to whales that will hold then a bunch of smash and grabbers.

I think my math checks out.

1 Like
20

This would actually be against their best interest as flooding the market with dilute the rewards and focus them on one days worth of rewards.

As a voter I’d much rather go through and click on 40 proposals at one time then have to go check every day for the next 40 days.

1 Like
21

not going to help, it hypothetically even going to hurt the whole tokenomic process just like the no effective 10icp proposal did

22

Before it is returned back, minimum 1 week, we may be flooded with spams. @ysyms is a white spammer and he used a flaw to show the community that there was a flaw. He always been transparent and have showned his color all the time. He has post some ideas for solution. Does not mean we have to do everything he propose. So why creating a confrontation with this by returning to something that was making no sense, the governance proposal having same weight as the exchange rate proposal. Why not working all together to resolve?

1 Like
24

@ggf2134 I don’t think a threat is the way to resolve either. Not sure what is your point here?
One thing for sure, threat does not and will not work if you want to achieve something.

1 Like