I believe you mean:
“An uninformed user may only select from the list of named neurons”
(again, i don’t see how a named neuron is an oligarch)
But I think I agree with you since by definition you are saying: “Users unaware of feature X are NOT using feature X.”
Thats very reasonable.
What is unknown is how many people are unaware of X feature or how many would change their behavior. Not sure, but I am definitely a believer in making the design more obvious based on personal anecdotes.
If dfinity thinks that most people can go to Twitter, youtube, etc. various places to find neurons to follow, then why design a named neuron list?
The intent is simple and borne from just “Be helpful. Make it easy for folks” by giving people some options.The first options were DFINITY and ICA (at Genesis) since its a new network, but the proposal and UX more was added.
The rationale is to help people (again, UX/Design)… but still allow power users who want to input their own neuron IDs.
Shouldn’t an interest group that achieves self-censorship be called an oligarch?
Can you define who the “interest group” is in this example?
and what “self-censorship” (again, anyone can follow any neuron or vote how they want)
I want to help others too, please put my neuron on it and don’t get voted by those on the list
all neurons in the list @wpb @cycledao @skilesare @dfinity @ICA @infu @cryptoisgood @blockpunk and all future
You can literally go on Twitter and tell folks to follow your neuron ID… not sure where the self-censorship is.
Named neurons need to go through motion proposals, and motion proposals will be controlled by an oligarch list, isn’t it self-censorship?
so you think the named neurons are an “interest group”? What is their interest?
Voting weight is interest
We locked the ICP, what did we get?
So why aren’t the neurons in the oligarch’s list telling others on their own tweets?
@ysyms I don’t mean to interject myself into your conversation but I wanted to share a resource I found helpful when submitting our named neuron proposal. This is a template named neuron proposal string from @skilesare
Hey @Arthur. I would be willing to submit this proposal for you. If you will post the new neuron name along with the description you want to use, then I can submit it any time you are ready. I was wondering if this is something you would prefer, so I’m glad you have commented and others have already answered the question to confirm it is possible to rename the neuron by just submitting another RegisterKnownNeuron proposal.
To me this is just another reason why we should all expect people to actively participate in governance. Yes, questions will come up, but community leaders can choose to snuff the fire instead of fanning the flames. We all have a role in educating people. People need to know how named neurons are created as well as who and why they are following them. This kind of change is just a label change that has no immediate impact on voting maps or voting rewards. Yet it seems like a perfect opportunity to shock people into realizing that tokenomics are intended to motivate people to pay attention to ICP governance.
You’re assuming we have access to everyone that uses the nns. Lots of people don’t go to dfinity forums, don’t go to Twitter. All they know is the nns, how are these people supposed to be educated ?
The same way that the rest of us are educated…
It would also be nice if DFINITY created a Latest Developments in Governance section on their web page or in the NNS dApp. I am working on a website to support IC governance and I do plan to include a one stop location to find all the latest information on how to maximize voting rewards. This kind of change would be included.
@Arthur can always rename the neuron (using a Register Known Neuron proposal) twice to avoid this. The first time, he can rename the neuron to something like “Arthur Falls (formerly cycledao.xyz)”, and he can explain the change of name in the Register Known Neuron description field. For context, this is the current description:
cycle_dao is a group of Internet Computer ecosystem members who deliberate on proposals and vote via a DAO that controls the cycle_dao neuron. We aim to weigh the interests of all parties in the Internet Computer ecosystem and support the future stability and longevity of the Internet Computer.
So the new description can explain the name change. This description isn’t currently displayed in the NNS front-end dapp or IC dashboard, but that can be added.
Then when a reasonable amount of time has passed and followers have had time to notice the change, optionally rename the known neuron a second time to remove the “(formerly cycledao.xyz)” text.
Haha. I’ve been wanting to suggest @ysyms create his own named neuron for a long time, but haven’t been able to figure out the right way to do it because 1) it’s antithetical to his primary message about “oligarchs” and 2) he’s the guy responsible for all that spam and I’d probably get a lot of FUD for suggesting it (especially if he became a named neuron when the list was short). The reality is that @ysyms changed the conversation about governance and motivated a lot of participation, so I see no reason why he shouldn’t be a named neuron. He has a political position in this ecosystem and I would support him pursuing it…even if he is only a high school kid. 