i will delete that post but overall i think reducing governance weight to 1 is nonsense
2 Likes
Not sure who gonna work with us as a protocol if we keep going back and forth like this, hurt the image and especially the trust and confidence that people have within the internet computer
1 Like
I don’t think it should be changed. Governance is one of the most important categories, so the weighing should indeed be high, should serve as an incentive to participate in governance.
Love or hate the spam proposals, they’re making me definitely check the nns daily. i manually vote on whatever is there, not just governance.
We need people frequently voting. If people can vote independently, without following a neuron, even better because we’ll now have individuals voting instead.
If people are too lazy to vote, why should they be rewarded?
2 Likes
Solving stress test that created by risk manager @ysyms not creating proposals to oppose the conductors
Hi Austin,
I sent an ICP to support you making this proposal, however I haven’t yet decided on how I’ll vote. On the one hand, I would love to see a solution to this spam issue put in place asap. On the other hand, it kills me to think that the 600ICP crowdfunding will be pocketed by it’s initiator instead of burned. This is a silly reason, so I’ll probably vote in favor of the temporary change.
1 Like
The root issue is the weighted governance rewards. To effectively solve a problem you always start with the root cause. @ysyms showed us how changes to the NNS can snowball into larger problems.
The NNS has a weakpoint, something that can and will be exploited. We are allowed to revert or tweak changes if they did not work out. Thats how evolution works, thats how political systems work. If something does not work you either remove it or go extinct.
This is a social experiment, volatility is implied. We must learn our errors now before mass adoption kicks in. Reverting to original settings is not a panic move. Its a logical one. If your computer isnt working reset, if your strategy isnt working reset, if your program isnt working reset, back to the drawing board.
We dont need everyone to vote, the NNS is designed to pass proposals even if a low number of neurons vote. We are still early there are only 90,000 neurons voting in existence and many of those are controlled by single entities. The number of people is still very low.
2 Likes
I’m not familiar with the phrase “white spammer” but I think you’re trying to use it in a way that is similar to an ethical (white hat) hacker. I do not agree with this assessment because all the ethical hackers I know would never actively exploit vulnerabilities just to prove their point.
I’ve always understood the term “Governance”, in the context of the NNS, to mean any and all proposal types. I don’t know why there’s so much weight given to the actual governance motion proposals when they do so little. Especially when the vast majority of them don’t have any real development resources allocated to them.
3 Likes
I’m really conflicted on this one, spam proposals are a problem but I don’t know if it’s worth reverting governance weight to stop it. I agree with the position that people not voting on governance don’t deserve to have rewards comparable to those that do. Therefore, I don’t like the idea of giving 4 months of evenly distributed rewards to those neurons, if they want to get paid then they need to participate.
I disagree. The root cause is default configuration of neuron following for All Topics. Proposal weights incentivize spam, but they don’t cause it. The problem exists because there is an imbalance in participation. Proposal weights have enabled decentralization and are essential to progress of IC governance. ICP is a governance token and active participation should be expected.
2 Likes
There has to be a better way to incentivize participation then to allow a rewards exploit to exist. If the root cause is the default configuration of followees. Then Resetting reward balancing makes even more sense. Reset all applied bandaids and only change the root cause.
Resetting everything from known neuron to reward weight to 1. going back to the old way with only dfinity and ica as the two main followees
1 Like
Do we really NEED to incentivize governance? When I staked my ICP I didn’t realized I was signing up for a full time job. If the goal is to get people to stake I don’t think we should force them to work.
At this point if it keeps taking more of my time I’m just going to write a bot that auto votes everything with whoever is winning.
2 Likes
I fundamentally disagree that a governance proposal is inherently worth more than an exchange rate proposal. This idea ignores the reality of black swans.
One bad XDR to Cycles proposal getting through could wreck the cycle market for decades(see the latest bug where Trillions and Trillions of cycles were produced and thankfully a white hat reported it.).
What if someone slips in a node reward proposal that gives 100M ICP to a hacker and they liquidate?
No one had any guarantees about what will happen in the future and any one of the categories could be a cause of unquantified harm to the system. We need ALL of them to be decentralized. We should have at least 10 organizations voting on XDR exchange proposals.
One could argue that we should increase the weight of those proposals to 20x due to the fact that the only voting neurons right now are likely DFINITY and ICA. Most feel they can trust them, but what about an unforeseen bug? It is the same reason the ETH community wants clients written in more than one language by more than one organization.
I will include temporary in the proposal and revert date, but I think the move should be permanent because we need to incentivize the diversification of all categories equally when taking into account second-order consequences and unknown volatility.
We need to benefit from volatility and randomness in this system. In fact, the fastest way to decentralization would be for the NNS to randomly decide the weights on certain days and for the DFINITY FOUNDATION and ICA to not vote. Then you’d really get some interesting behavior! We are not ready for that yet, but once we have the solid bones of the system in place where we have 10+ independent organizations dedicated to each category it would be a great immune system to put in place.
2 Likes
I don’t view it this way. We needed more governance participation and we got it. We may need to turn the dials some more after another hundred million of ICP has dissolved out of the Genesis neurons. The conceit to up the reward threshold was genius. It is also now a problem.
I’d argue(and have) that active abstaining and/or delegation is as important, or more important than participation. Delegation to the DFINITY foundation is a 100% rational choice at the moment. In five years one may want to reconsider, but for now they built the thing and have a very high number of phds running it.
4 Likes
When people refer to the value of exchange rate proposals vs governance proposals, they are referring to the amount of time and effort that is required from the community and how much value that should bring to them in the form of governance rewards. Nobody disputes the value of exchange rate proposals in the IC economy. They are routine. They are executed automatically. They do not require brain power of the governing body. We have people for that…Dfinity takes care of it automatically.
Which is why it is so important that currently everyone delegates to them and not leave us open to rouge proposals. But! It is a massive vulnerability! So why not incentivize fixing it?
The value of the work to determine who you delegate to is not worth less than the work to vote your yourself.(I think I’m fairly firm on that point). Now I get that everyone is on the ‘default’ right now, but the other choice was to NOT create a neuron. Everyone made the choice. It was a good choice for at least the semi immediate future.
2 Likes
I remember last year when Dfinity first implemented Simple Majority and then stopped voting on Governance proposals. I was shocked. I felt like they were taking the training wheels off too soon. Yet they had been saying since genesis that they want a decentralized governance system. They have pushed us in that direction in many ways and very effectively in my opinion. The most recent push was proposal weights and removing Governance from All Topics. Each step they take to influence the community to grow up into this decentralized governance system has occurred by way of increasing active participation. I agree there is a place for passive participation, but I also think we need to embrace more fully the intentional mutability of the system that increasingly incentivizes active participation. When you step back and look at the changes that have been made and the proposals that have passed so far, what qualifies as active participation is still very passive. It takes very little effort for most people to meet the criteria that enables them to maximize rewards.
4 Likes
Thank you for educating me on the exchange voting. It make sense.
Understand your point now.
I agree. I think we stop the current spam, regroup, and find a solution that works with both weights and not weights. I think we can all agree that an ideal system is where there are lots of actively voting organizations/individuals and that we can reliably follow them(I think abstain needs to be removed from the decision matrix…either >50 accept or reject…reject is a path of minimal change so it should be default…working on a proposal in the next couple of days.). This stops the spam and lets us focus on diversifying the follow options and gets us to a reset of the follows. If we get it all lined up we can increase the weights in the categories we think are ready for further decentralization and bump the numbers again.
3 Likes