yeah…unfortunately the attempt to incentivize the inactive and to better compensate “the active one” has resulted in one of “the active one” (or a few) spamming the NNS
1 Like
Exactly, those who vote with feets are the roots of all problem.
What does vote with feets mean? I’m not following your argument?
you’re not one of them but you’re representing them.
and the NNS were not build for them.
But still I think we need to find a ways but by build a new seperate liquidity staking entities (liquity equivalent) but not here within the NNS (sorry)
I was being provocative to state a point that we are centralizing the vote through following 8 percent is pretty high is the point.
It’s the 8 year lock up and lack of readily available information that makes it bad. Dfinity has documentation stating that we get 28% interesting if we lock up for 8 years and that is not true. We probably need to add warning labels all over the NNS that this is not staking and to get gains you are expected to actively take part in governance.
But honestly my biggest issue with all of this is that we are encouraging governance while simultaneously giving people the ability to follow neurons. So we are essentially encouraging centralization of power to those exposed neurons.
I also think we are actively gate keeping staking from average people which long term is bad for the health of the ecosystem.
In my ICDevs capacity, I’m representing my(and the devs I talk to) best guess view on what is good for the developers in the ecosystem. Currently, that is a lack of volatility, predictability, and ability to focus on development without having to be overburdened by the governance of a network that DFINITY is doing a fine job piloting. My desire for ICDevs was, for the immediate future, to follow DFINITY except where we felt that it diverged from the best interest of developers. When dfinity stopped voting, and/or became selective that made that stated goal more difficult. I’m glad DFINITY launched and I love how far we have come, but I think there is significant tech to build before we wade into the wild wild west of decentralized land.
1 Like
That’s why I think this proposal is bad because it does not only incentivize the inactive one but also making the NNS slowly in the long run back into the death governance system too
But Reward and our current tokenomic isn’t the problem
You just tackling the wrong issue and I think @ysyms isn’t a bad actor either
I would like to understand this
better.
Why is it our responsibility to inform those who have so much that rewards don’t matter to them? Don’t they, precisely because of their disinterest/disdain, DESERVE not to earn?
How come they don’t know / they don’t care about what’s going on in our liquid democracy? I consider this to be fairly arrogant that us, who don’t have so much , have to inform those who have so much.
1 Like
Please just build another liquidity staking protocol for those passive and i would happily provide liquidity because it’s enough for the ICP to be call as a big centralized protocol, no difference than evils Goldman Sachs
You want people to stake if you want ICP to succeed. Punishing people who believe in ICP so much they stake for years is not a good attitude.
we do not want to punish but the nature of the NNS was not build for them.
And active participant (vote with brain) deserve the reward.
Keep incentivize active participant instead of starting this nonsense twist.
but this proposal is a consequence of the original issue which Voting Participation
therefore, the issue is being addressed. The reward structure was modified with the intent of incentivizing participation in governance (which is the core purpose of the NNS), the goal is to have as many participants as possible for more decentralization.
The first attempt worked in achieving the goal partially but exposed a problem, there is nothing wrong with reverting and doing it a little different.
We want more active participants with no spammers
4 Likes
What is spam is the key question.
Was @wpb 's 30 days of educational motion proposals spam? For me it was, because it was not actionable. For others, not so much.
Why is @ysyms proposals considered spam? Because he explicitly calls them as such? What if another attacker creates a set of educational motion proposals and packages them up nicely?
I would definitely think that we should reward active participants and discourage non-active participants. Further the onus of burden should be on the participants to be active or not; NOT FOR US TO GO THROUGH THIS CIRCUS; to appease non-active participants (who, from most accounts, don’t even care whether they get rewards or not).
5 Likes
@wpb and @Kyle_Langham actually the one created me, introduced me through their high annualized article and I think alots of other people too into the NNS, used to be a passive one following other neuron to now independent and vote carefully even everyday by myself and now seeing people accusing @ysyms as a spammer without seeing the bigger picture that he brought that’s why I’m here voicing myself to the injustice and opposing this proposals that super unfair to the one that active.