I don’t see anything wrong with temporarily resetting the weighting structure back to 1 while a better solution is found…good intended changes don’t always work the way they are meant to work, it happens all the time in real life, so if we have the opportunity of reverting back and fix it why not. Not wanting to revert back and fixing it would be like wanting Boeing to keep flying their 737 MAX with the “improvements” they made until they fix them. (the original 737 kept flying while they fix the improved ones)
I’m not sure why you qualify things this way. I’m proposing to revert to something that was in place for months and worked fine. Also, it is temporary. Secondly, I’m not trying to shoot anyone. @ysyms has done a masterful job exposing a flaw. I’m just trying to clear the decks. I believe I have more to gain from lack of liquidation than I do from extra rewards from weighting on proposals. I’m suggesting something I think is in the interest of anyone who wants the ICP price to go up. I don’t want to have to vote on two proposals every day for the next 30 days(or longer). I have other things to do.
Then vote to reject. I was asked to make the motion and I have. I’ll figure out how to vote as we approach the deadline. I’m happy to be convinced that falling back is a bad idea. @wpb has done the best job to date, but I still think a temporary revert stops the spam and lets us get the other good ideas coded. I know how hard these things are and how complex some of the motions are.
Solve the real stress test that conducted by @ysyms not being panic and twist everything that we try incentivize active participant that vote with brain.
Delegated staking is used on Cosmos and cosmos chains. The Delegator chooses a Validator based upon available information, which may include a link to the validator’s website BUT ALSO, each validator is able to set and take a percentage of the reward they receive for doing the work.
If a similar system were introduced, persons who, or entities that are fully vested in the Internet Computer’s progress could probably turn a tidy profit from undertaking such roles through charging an appropriate commission on the IC.
What do you perceive the real stress is? In my opinion, the stress is the unequal weightings of categories when they are all equally important. Can you make a case that some should be weighted higher than others? Can you make a case that there is a way that you can fix this while keeping weights in place?
@wpb makes the case that resetting known neurons is the way to do it, but I think it creates fragility as people no longer follow dfinity and I don’t think the network is ready for that fragility.
Just like the tokenomic of sonic, 75percent of it token will be distribute to it users (people that interact with sonic) similar to wens uniswap distribute it token and most of it went to it users.
Walk me through your thinking, because I’m not quite sure I understand your point of view.
Let’s take stocks for example. I could buy stock in a company today and the terms of that ownership is free to change throughout the lifetime of my ownership. The company could (1) pay more or less dividends, (2) change operating models, (3) engage in business deals against my interest, (4) inflate or deflate my ownership (though dilution or buybacks), (5) sell off or purchase major divisions within the company, or a million other things that would change the terms of my investment. In fact, stocks are even worse than the NNS because none of those five examples even require a shareholder vote in the US… at least everything in the NNS is decided by vote. In your framework, how are stocks legit, but the NNS is a scam? I’m truly not understanding how the NNS is any different from any other investment. Heck, even the terms on my mortgage (which should be the most fixed investments there are) are free to change (although, admittedly within bounds) with no control of myself… my mortgage provider has changed hands twice in the past year without my consent.
Regarding your example of ICDevs giving themselves a million ICP… how would that work? ICDevs has 8.3% of the vote following them. Would the remaining 91.7% not vote? Also remember, ICDevs has that voting power because individual neuron holders have made the conscience decision to allocate their voting power to ICDevs. That decision was at their free will and they are free to reverse that decision at any time should they disagree with ICDevs voting patterns.
To clarify, our proposal is for people to confirm their Followee selections and only reset if they don’t confirm within the required timeframe. People are still free to confirm or select Dfinity or ICA even if their Followee is reset. My best guess is that people will choose Dfinity when they actively select or reset their Followees assuming Dfinity always votes.
My concern is that you vastly underestimate the number of large investors currently holding the network together by their passive investment. I know some of these people and I know the people that manage their tokens and they wouldn’t be following anyone for governance at the moment if I hadn’t explicitly reached out and provided instructions(there are a lot more that I don’t know). If 50% of the network only follows dfinity and never reconfirms and Dfinity only holds 24% of the network then we have an issue with at least some overdramatic intrigue that the fledgling network may not be ready for.
I’m not trying to sound overdramatic, but there are sizeable chunks of this network that don’t know they are getting rewards, have so much that they won’t notice if they stop, and that you or I won’t be able to reach to inform them of what is going on. The network is designed for that to go away eventually, but we’re just getting to the End of Epoch 1 and we have 2 more years to go before almost all of the genesis neurons don’t have massive sway. I’d 100% support your position in 2 years. I’m just worried about the effects on the next 1 year.
