Yes…this is one of my big concerns.
I missed most of those deliberations building some cool stuff. On the down side the ICP increase in rejection cost went through because I was distracted, but on the positive side the Origyn ledger is ready for DeFi and up to the current NNS standard 
@alejandrade or you could transforming yourself from being passive elsewhere to become an active one or maybe be both
I don’t really understand this logic. Would you please clarify further?
I do agree that we don’t have enough public known neurons. I think that’s one of the next biggest issues that needs to be resolved. Again, if it were up to me I would use tokenomic incentives to drive toward more public known neurons. I really haven’t given too much thought to how to achieve that yet, but I think @skileshare has presented an interesting idea in another thread.
I guess I would tend to argue against the idea that we are not moving toward decentralization. It is a work in progress and we have a long way to go, but I believe significant progress is being made.
Maybe im misunderstanding, but none of this actually increases or decreases any neuron’s VP or the total VP of the NNS. Even if those neurons aren’t following another neuron their VP is still being tallied in the total. Right?
Forcing governance through tokenomics isn’t increasing decentralization.
People who don’t want to vote will never vote they will always delegate their votes. When they delegate their votes they are giving power to the exposed neurons centralizing power to them.
If tokenomics where not incentivizing people to vote then those people currently giving exposed neurons power would not vote therefore decentralizing voting power to people that actually want to vote.
Meaning all these tokenomics are doing is giving exposed neurons more power and the normal person that want to vote less power
Overall this panic proposal shouldn’t be pass.
From what I’ve been seeing if you’re compound merging that number is actually closer to 30% currently (assuming the governance weights stay as they are now)
why assuming when people try to abolish this beautiful system lol
Yes, this is correct currently. My argument is that inactive voting power (neurons that have not voted in the last x days), should not be included in the calculation of total voting power. Once they start voting again (they have voted on the last y proposals or they have voted for the last z days), then their voting power should start being included in the total voting power calculation again and they should start receiving voting rewards again. I think we need to consider an approach like this because there is an important utility for Dfinity to be able to execute absolute majority on routine business proposals. It may not be needed though because we are really close to having 50% of total voting power actively participating. New tokenomics incentives and advertising may push us beyond that absolute majority threshold that is needed.
try to avoid the stress test through this proposal for the short period of time instead of solving the real problem that concern the future potential of real attacker with non reward incentivize but straight up into destroying our governance system. Ridiculous
Caring about those who vote with feets and try to discourage those who vote with brain, funny
Do you mean, neurons managed by people/entities that are known?
I’m not a fan of excluding neurons from the VP calculation. I understand your reasoning; but, if Dfinity was concerned about losing the ability to push hotfixes then they should address that in a more transparent manner. Otherwise, if this is truly an open protocol, governed by the users, then they should have faith in the community to follow and support them on those proposal types.
I think any neuron that has the right to vote should be included in the tally. Otherwise, we lose transparency. I can only imagine how many skewed interpretations of the data will be thrown around:
“Look at our voter participation, it’s up to %95.” Sure, but only because we changed the definition of voter participation.
Isn’t this open governance where a neuron can follow any neuron?
Disappointed with the NNS
NNS would jeopardise itself by resetting followers before suffering a decrease in the short term financial gains, earned through siphoning the rewards from other unaware neurons.
Why did the foundation vote no?
l’m glad that this proposal didn’t pass. We (the active ones) are getting more out of the same exact pie . Sure, there are spams … but i’m sure there will be a solution in coming months.
Some thoughts… How did the weight change proposal pass in the first place ? Is it really well thought enough ? One shouldn’t assume that all of us are good actors … Bad actor creating spam proposals must have been brought up before but nonetheless it pass ! Let’s just keep moving forward/improving and not result to reverting.
What about Something like:
Active voter: 1 reward
Passive 1/4 reward
Own vote: 1
Followee vote for you, you recieve: 1/4 reward and the followee recieve 1/4 of your voting power.
1 and 1/4 is just an example don’t know the exact statistics about how to compensate Avtive and passiv
And at the same time giving less power to “big neurons” that create monopoly.