Are you kidding me? 
Please make something useful. You are from the cycledao.xyz and ICDevs.org?
For the record, @wpb has thought a good bit more about this than me and I’m inclined to agree with him. One caveat is that this proposal can be implemented by changing code on two lines and doesn’t need to be tested as it is just constant being changed. So it can be implemented very, very quickly.
1 Like
Make a proposal to delete cycledao.xyz please! They even don’t understand the proposal, how could it be followed?
That is a decent idea! It would force me to get my act together on following the board or creating the dao code needed to let devs vote.
1 Like
I’ll caveat this with the fact that it will lower the number of ICP you receive but will likely also lower the number of ICP given to likely liquidators, thus there is a high likely hood that the price of ICP will stay higher if it is implemented. It is more complicated than that and dissolves delays may skew that, but I think that using weighing is inflationary on the whole. The people who aren’t paying attention are also hodling. @Kyle_Langham could probably speak to what percentage of rewards vs dissolve occurs each day/month.
I’m not sure what your criticism is, but you have no idea what I spent the first 14 hours of my day doing. This is my non-profit second job. I’d love some help if you are volunteering it 
The folks at cycle_dao are smart as hell and are all under the pump building amazing things. Part of the reason for this proposal is that I’d rather be building than filtering spam out of my NNS inbox.
2 Likes
Actually, this is hard though because I could follow a neuron that follows ICPMNS. The code would have to follow the chain.
ICPMN neuron only follows our 13 individual voting members on the governance topic. Each of us created new neurons with no Followee configured. These neurons are specifically intended for voting on governance as Followees for the governance topic.
ICDevs could do the same today. You don’t need to develop any new tooling if you just use the NNS like it was designed. Whoever you want to vote for ICDevs, set their neuron as Followees for governance for ICDevs and ask them not to configure any Followee for their neuron. Then start voting manually on all governance proposals.
BTW, you yourself have to create a voting neuron too. You don’t want to vote manually for the ICDevs neuron. You want your Followees to vote for the ICDevs neuron instead.
4 Likes
So from now on we gonna revoke the reward weight to 1 everytime there’s a spammer event, right but what if the next spammer try to destroy the system instead of reward incentivize?
I just thought we must have more thoughtful regarding a new solution, rather than just return to the original one if the new solution seem not working.
Hopefully this proposal tanks
I proposed it as a temporary rollback so we have to have that discussion or it will just happen again. ETH uses ice age to force this where rewards start dropping if a fork isn’t released. Here we face spam if we don’t fix it. As @wpb says, one has already passed and there are other good suggestions, most of which take time to implement.
How to define spam? If this thing could drive the community to contribute some better solutions, I don’t think we could define it as spam simply. Why not just let it moving (so that slowly more and more ppl from the community will know this is not the right solution and may have better one), and while at the same time figure out a better solution via discussion.
approaching governance like those wall street bet isn’t the way to go, Panic attack, buy high sell low type of approach! Wish that will be tank or is it because @ysyms had touch the interest of some big neuron followee so now you regrouping and try to get rid of @ysyms risk management out at all cost?
2 Likes
Btw I also think that this whole reward weight to 1 should be postpone untill periodic confirmation of neuron followees be introduced because it seem like icdev abusing power and try to abolish the governance reward without even noticing their followers
3 Likes
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. In my view, all stakers are participating in a fluid and evolving DAO, in which the expectation is that they participate in that evolution and receive rewards for their participation. The system is not a passive stake investment, it is a governance system. Anyone who stakes on the NNS should understand that the system will evolve and that the expectation on them is that they help shape that evolution and remain aware of any changes.
If we accept the mindset that stakers should be able to “set and forget” then we almost certainly will fail at governance.
5 Likes
The nns taking peoples money hostage for 8 years then changing the reward structure on a whim borders on fraud.
1 Like
Postpone this proposal untill periodic confirmation of neuron followees be introduced so that we could know the legit number of real active followers that follow the big 3 followees so that any malicious followees couldn’t use any death neuron to abuse the power within the NNS, decentralization of the NNS first.
Because it seem so sketchy already that icdev try to push that fast for this important proposal right before any change in confirmation of followees.
Please explain how the NNS is taking people’s money hostage when it is a voluntary opt-in system. At every step of the process (staking in a neuron, setting the dissolve delay, deciding to dissolve) it is the owner who has full authority over the decisions being made.