I don’t disagree. The bad example I can think of is it is like processing nutrients through the digestive system. We need to get it out, but there is a process. You don’t want to cut into the stomach and remove it from there. Sometimes you just have to wait for the body to do its thing. It will come out eventually. They served a massive purpose. They funded the platform when it was a drawing on a napkin. If they don’t convert their nutrients into muscle and bone by giving a damn then they will eventually be excreted out of the system.
1 Like
I also don’t disagree with your example. However it seems,(continuing your example) that “they” are so lazy that they just want to open their mouth so that someone else can feed them caviar. Why can’t they use their hands to get caviar to their mouth?
1 Like
they should just eat at the kitchen at the back of the house if they’re that lazy
and lefte the whole fine dining salon for us that are not.
I think you want people to think that taking an extraordinary risk for your platform results in a long train of positive feedback and rewards. We are financing their risk/reward ratio at the moment. It is programmed to be phased out. It is much better than the corporate model where you are stuck with inactive investors forever. You have to promise some reward or the original risk won’t be taken and you have to honor the reward or people won’t trust you the next time.
2 Likes
do we not care about being competitive with other layer one programs?
In term of tvl? Then we should build another passive one because nobody gonna count the staking tvl inside the non tokenize NNS.
It actually like corporate spinout sort of speak, creating another value for shareholders if it in corporate high finance.
And we are not type of like locking the ICP to verify the transaction like ethereum validating system either
Whoa this snowballed.
a reset is the obvious choice. It gives us time to produce an actual long term solution.
I am already seeing some great ideas out here. We need time and i mean a long off (4 months is a good amount) time to fully discuss a permanent solution. To replace to following.
Two things we need to consider:
Rewards engine - if we want to keep the weighted rewards it should be done in a way that does not reinforce malicious behaviors. @justmythoughts has a pretty good solution.
Spam filtration - wether governance rewards are increased or reset, spam will still be a problem. We need a way to control spam without taking away from the open democracy of the current NNS. We must define the core values that we want for the NNS and
Both of these must work in conjunction. Whats the point of setting up spam filters when individuals are inventivized to spam.
The fact is the current governance rewards model is highly exploitable. Especially for the larger neurons. Its a gaping hole. We are giving ourselves time to create a solid decentralized system. Trial and error is a basis of all human accomplishment.
1 Like
THE NNS is the governance one, please remember
We incentivize real active voters not passive stakers so better build another one so that we could create another value for the network through tokenizing that because the NNS is the governance non tokenize dapp
or maybe the ICP is the alr tokenize NNS, but we need a separate entity between passive and active in my opinion.
I don’t begrudge them that (financing their risk) Yes, they have taken extraordinary risk for which they should be rewarded) ; but hopefully they were accredited (or similarly educated).
Therefore i assume they knew that NNS was a living breathing thing whose changes they would need to monitor to gain their rewards.
In short, my beef is with the fact that why we spend ANY IOTA of time thinking (or acting) about what they would think about what rewards they are not getting and how to appease them. Yes, i have gone through the article you posted on the experiment conducted. I am not sure whether the short timespans apply in this context(4+ years at least).
1 Like
It just so bad to have ICP especially those (no useful passive) concentrate all inside the NNS because it resulted with the DEFI ecosystem of the IC become the lowest TVL within the crypto space
Get them passive out and rewarding real active one, simple. Or incentivize those passive to become the active staker through this rewarding system that made by sir wenzel instead, exemple me the living exemple created by that system.
I’ve seen you make similar points before, but still haven’t fully understood what you are trying to say. Perhaps this latest comment has enough information for me to read between the lines, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
I think you are saying is that we need passive investors who follow Dfinity because that enables Dfinity to control all non governance decisions (routine business) through liquid democracy. I think this is a valid concern and I think it does need to be addressed. I’m surprised this didn’t come up in the deliberation on our proposal 55651.
I think the answer to this concern is simple. If a neuron has not been voting for a certain small period of time (e.g. a day, week, or month), then that neuron should not be included in the calculation of total voting power in the NNS. Hence, if a significant fraction of the voting power that is currently not voting on governance continues to not vote on anything because they don’t confirm their Followees, the the total voting power must become smaller than it is currently. That makes Dfinity total voting power go up significantly, which means they will still have the ability to execute proposals for routine, non governance topics by absolute majority.
When neuron owners do finally decide that they will select and confirm their Followees, then their neuron can start collecting voting rewards again. Nobody is trying to stop this from happening. It is important to communicate these changes widely so people are aware of changes.
From my perspective, I’m not trying to take voting rewards from others. Instead, I want to use the voting rewards as incentives (I believe they are designed for this purpose) to motivate people to participate by some minimum definition of active participation. If this doesn’t happen, then we can’t achieve decentralization. As mentioned several times before, there are other actions required to achieve that decentralization, but proposal weights are central to achieving the goal in my opinion.
2 Likes
I was incentivize by sir kyle Langham and got pumped by the rewarding system made by sir wenzel, PASSIVE to ACTIVE till today
1 Like
I don’t think this is achieving decentralization in any way. I think we would be far more decentralized if we remove following feature and make all staking passive. Right now all we have achieved is centralization towards exposed neurons.
@alejandrade Passive should be tokenize and creating value for the network with their activities exemple building another protocol that could be tokenize, or be locked elsewhere that could tokenize and at the same time creating value for the network, increase the network effect for the system rather than locked and being no useful inside the NNS.