ReProposal: Spam Prevention - Convert from system-based rewards to voter based rewards

Yeah, I completely agree. 100% not a huge concern of mine. I have been trying to stay up to date on this particular thread, saw your share, and appreciated the honesty because I had this issue with the spam proposal when reducing it back down to 1. Which was a controversial move, I humbly admit as well; that I cast my vote wrong, and wish I could have changed it. I was very new to the procedures of voting and staking. Thankfully, my vote at the time had no significant value. However, down the road if devs. could consider it. Personally, I may outgrow this thought process. Although, there may be someone else unwilling to ask/ speak up when first entering the space, where this could be useful to acknowledge while I’m in this phase of my journey. I noticed you quickly enter new phases of education on the IC and as you develop you forget the subtle difficulties you wish were presented more clearly. So, I am only hoping they consider it one day (as you said)

2 Likes

we could consider allocating these un-distributed rewards to an active voters.

Good to see the proposal translated to various of language.

But obviously the translation by Google is not precision, may be misunderstood in somewhere.

8yeargangDAO will produce a Chinese interpretation for this proposal to help people understanding.

This proposal is so important for our neurons! thanks for all your effect :heartbeat:

3 Likes

Hi everyone. I just have a quick question (hopefully not dumb enough to be completely ignored): I have configured my neuron to follow some other neurons to vote. If this proposal passes, will it impact my daily reward and how?
Thank you.

1 Like

Thank you! For the next proposal can I’ll contact you directly for a translation?

Nope. You’ll get the same rewards if you follow on the governance topic(provided your followee votes) as you would if you had voted manually.

This would put us back in the position where three is an incentive for spam.

In fact what ever we do with this ICP will be a target for manipulation, so we need to plan carefully.

1 Like

No problem ! We are very please to do the bridge!

Thanks for the clarification.

I am of the opinion that having the NNS and Governance Discussions for update to the NNS in-house is not Decentralized, placed within an environment where accountants and programmers are in control where they expect outside investment.

You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Which is the environment you have created.

While, within-house, you take away our investment promises of returns, call us names to justify your reasons to remove our rewards.

Clearly, so far, the changes are one side and then there is the spam, awful.

The reason for the many failures and do-overs are due to self interests you put forward which is the same behavior you claim you want rid of.

How is that spam is supported with donated coins for rejection but then is rewarded by being accepted and the proposals for updates from internal for donation is ignored.

I want to see investors reading this and that agree, to put forward discussion for an update to be moved to a public forum and a true decentralized environment.

1 Like

It is agreed that the tokenomics is very bad. No one argue this. Now that we have a chance to reduce the inflation with this proposal and help the price, some want to create a treasury to support projects or whatever. Eventually, this treasury will be dumped in the market and pressure the price down, again, like it is not pressured enough already.
Many does not seems to get the concept that with less ICP, the price will go up. We already have the community fund for the projects. A treasury will not help the ecosystem. It will create jobs where those lucky winners won’t have any incentive or motivation for success.
A higher price for ICP and a well controlled CF will be much more beneficial to the entire ecosystem.
More ICP, that will be all for sale at some point, will just make it worst.
Business 101

4 Likes

Perhaps the ICP that would have been in treasury should instead be burned? That’s more ideal?

2 Likes

Absolutely the best option, for everyone. Better have less ICP on the market at higher price than more at low price.

2 Likes

Treasury, in my opinion is not a bad idea, in the future for sure we will have some emergency and we will need money fast. But we have to keep inflation low, maybe 70% burn and 30% in treasury or something like that.

2 Likes

I do agree.

This is actually pretty reasonable. I’d be 100% on board with this if a proposal came about afterwards.

Thanks @skilesare for this interesting and straight-forward proposal.

There is a group of people here, who I am assuming are investors in the platform who have “staked” their money in the IC, anticipating a return that was discussed and explained by DFINITY. These folks, particularly those who are not up to date with current developments in the ecosystem, are the ones who will lose if this passes.

To anticipate or mitigate the negativity of those who lost out just by being in a different social sphere, I think the change should also mandate additional efforts to reach out to them. I must admit to suggesting this without much knowledge of how hard this would be or what is currently being done. Any fallout from bad press based on lost earnings would impact DFINITY and the community, so I think the responsibility falls with both.

I will be voting ‘yes’ to this proposal because it adds to the autonomy of the neuron holder. I like that ICP rewards involve participation and this proposal reinforces this point.

3 Likes

The community fund is for projects that can turn a profit, as far as I can tell (else why would anybody stake?). There are many potential projects out there that would improve the network but could not hope to make a profit. Think of the committee neurons suggested by @lastmjs for instance. How would those be funded? One possibility is to create new ICP but that would add to inflation. A second option is to take a bite out of peoples’ stakes, but that will also meet with a lot of resistance. A Treasury made up from undisbursed rewards would solve the problem without increasing inflation.
Inflation is pre-set on a downward trajectory anyway. Centralisation is a far greater long-term problem than inflation, and an NNS controlled treasury could greatly help with decentralisation.

3 Likes

This is Interpretation of NNS Proposal 80970 by 8yeargangDAO, hope this helps all of you understand the 80970 proposal,

3 Likes

I’d argue investing those tokens in the ecosystem to create new dApps will lead to better results than burning them. A thriving ecosystem will attract more devs and users resulting in more investors and ICP converted to cycles. Burning the tokens to reduce inflation is a very short sighted choice.

2 Likes

There are already VCs and Community fund to support new dApps. DSCVR have found investors because there is some good potential there. If an app creator cannot convince a VC or the CF to get financial support, would you use that treasury?
That treasury would never be able to follow up on the dApp. There will be no control. This is why I also do not believe in the CF.
But for this discussion, 2 options is more than enough and a third one would be waste of ICP.
Those ICP inflation for rewards 10% to 5% over 8 years were promised to be for NNS voters. When investors did their DYOR, they used the rewards calculator and the information provided by Dfinity to take the hard decision to lock for 8 years. After 18 months, some want to change the use of these rewards and use it for Dapps creator?
If you are a Dapp creator and need financial support, and have a good project, well documented with a credible financial plan, you will find investors easily or the CF to come.
A treasury should not be created to supply poor dApps creator, as been the last option for them.
Business 101

4 Likes