How does this work? Does it lower rewards?
@skilesare I’m pretty surprised you didn’t give any of us time to vote after posting the proposal. I was going to approve/support it, but it’s just a bit shady to post and vote immediately before any of your followers have the time to vote.
I am a huge supporter of the ICDevs mission, but will be removing the ICDevs neuron as a default followee because of this action.
Rewards were never lowered. You just got more if you followed voters or voted yourself. You were basically able to take rewards from people who either didn’t know how to work the NNS, had their keys in an inconvenient place or were generally not savvy enough to update their settings. This will not change the absolute number of rewards being issued.
Spammers and Whales are currently using the system to submit pseudo-informative posts to up their rewards. Are you getting rewarded for voting or are they getting rewarded for spamming? Sometimes two things are true. 
This just resets things for a bit while we get our ducks in a row. 
Huh. Isn’t it just tied to my neuron? If I submit it votes my neurons? Or is that because I have a hot key?
If this is the case, you may have discovered a bug or blown it. This proposal will pass, but its a bummer for people who enjoy manually voting early. I literally had just received a notification through the telegram bot.
At least we know that 34 million voters are influenced directly by ICDevs. That’s impressive, but you lost my votes for the time being going forward.
Well…hell. This is what happened to me on the increased vote. Why can’t we change our votes yet? This is maddening. My apologies. 
Well…this is an expensive lesson…let me void it and resubmit. Now I’m a spammer.
I would recommend getting in contact with the NNS team and documenting exactly what you did to find out what happened (unless you know the mistake).
@skilesare You may find it is in the best interests of the reputation of ICDevs to submit a proposal right away nullifying the result of proposal 56798 due to this issue. I want this proposal to pass, but I don’t want it to pass under these terms.
I think if this passes we NEED to pass a governance vote that makes it harder to change tokenomics in this way.
It’s criminal that people stake their tokens for 8 years and then terms change under them.
Already done…on the submission front.
Cheers, thanks for doing that.
By the way, great job making sure your proposal is translated and accessible. Love it!
One follow up question. So what happens if the original proposal passes, but this override proposal fails. Your voiding of the original proposal would fail…so does the original one go through?
This puts it back to the original state which everyone staked under until the change was made. Maybe everyone who asked between the change and now should be able to unstake? I get the issue. You’re not wrong…but neither are the people who thought they could follow ICA and DFINITY and get rewards for 8 years.
It was dumb. Maybe I clicked too fast or maybe my hotkeys get copied when I spawn a new neuron. I’m not sure…but I should not have voted with the core ICDevs Neuron and it looks like that happened almost immediately. It is ABSURD that it swayed that much. We need more named neurons yesterday.
I’m of the philosophy that no one should be forced to vote on governance and I’m going to try to find a solution for people to stake for 8 years without ever needing to log in to the nns.
I agree. I think they should be able to set their follow to 10 reliable people and as long as one of them votes their neuron should follow. Maybe we can put some kind of freshness on it that starts declining rewards, or an auto dissolve where if they don’t vote manually or confirm neurons then after 8 years they start to dissolve. There are options.
Great question. 
I guess we will find out.
cycledao is now following ICDevs instead of ICPMN. Public neurons should not be allowed to follow each other.
Yes, It will lower your rewards if this proposal passes.
I don’t think this proposal is necessary. We don’t need another temporary solution. We only need a permanent solution. We have one that has already passed a proposal and a couple other promising proposals that haven’t’ been submitted yet. Energy should be focused on permanent solutions at this time in my opinion. Proposal reject cost is the only temporary solution that makes sense.
I actually changed it to set the exchange rate to 1 as well.