I know your heart is in the right place and I don’t disagree with your genera message about voting. My issue is that what has been proposed so far does not change the fact that people can still earn rewards passively. If we really want to ensure that people are actually voting themselves then we need to get rid of liquid democracy. Otherwise I don’t see how it would be fair to judge seed round participants any different than post-Genesis participants.
2 Likes
Agreed. The missing link here is People Parties. If we could tag neurons as real, and slowly age that tag, active participation would be a simple metric.
1 Like
“Once a voter always a voter” is simply not true. So, just because seed investors “believed” in the system at their investment time, does not make them contributing members of the DAO. It makes them seed investors. In the startup space, investors are poison. They provide nothing but hope (income for people building change), and often rip that away without fair notice. It is not beneficial to the system to protect the less active. Investment is not a set it and forget it activity. If you want to make your living off of investments, then you need to take an active role in each of your investments. If the investment loses value, and you are invested but didn’t DYOR consistently, that is the investors fault.
2 Likes
I think it is important to make ICP staking interesting for the average investor without technical. If we move to a reward model only rewarding active voters we are pushing away a huge portion of potential investors. Right now, I don´t think we are in position to be picky about who deserve to receive rewards.
4 Likes
I can relate to this difficulty with command line interface. I am not a programmer or developer and I find it very difficult. Fortunately, there are very good instructions in the internet computer wiki (link below). It’s a one time CLI setup so you can control your neuron through hotkeys using the NNS dApp. I would very much like people who are having difficulty with this task learn how to control their neurons so they can participate in governance. What kind of initiatives do you think would help? I think anyone who wants to participate should be able to participate at this point.
https://wiki.internetcomputer.org/wiki/ICP_staking_with_seed_phrase_and_air-gapped_computer
strong words, you’re pretty much telling everyone that bought ICP off an exchange since genesis that they are fools and not worth the rewards they have been promised because they are dumb for believing all the talk about liquid democracy and how the NNS works
nice, guess I’ll have to convey this message to all those dumb, poisonous investors then…
I definitely think liquid democracy is important in this governance system, but I’m not at all opposed to resetting all Followees periodically (6 mo? 1 yr?) so people have to reconfirm their Followee decisions. To me, any time you make a conscious decision about how you will participate you are active. It doesn’t mean voting manually all the time. Periodic confirmation or your decisions make sense to me.
2 Likes
I would be open to a discussion on that topic. If it was well communicated and there was significant lead time I would not be entirely against that approach.
1 Like
on a side note: I have never experienced a community with so much entitlement and arrogance towards non-techies ever before, don’t think this is the way to revolutionize the internet tbh.
2 Likes
There’s a few other solutions in addition to the two mentioned above that does not involve increasing the barrier to entry or reducing governance rewards.
One of these solutions (shown below) is detailed in this post
I disagree with both solutions advertised here as they either act to raise the barrier to entry for submitting proposals (form of censorship), or reduce the governance voting rewards (decrease incentive). Both lead us in the opposite direction of where we want to be going in terms of NNS participation.
I agree, I used strong words. If you provide value to a team, label yourself with a title denoting your value. Advisor, engineer, visionary, marketer, community champion, there are valuable contributions that can be made directly to a team. Providing money, and nothing else, does very little good outside of funding the work. There is obvious value in funding people’s hard work, but don’t get confused that the initial funding earns continued rewards. Continue to provide value, and continue to be rewarded. I’m tired of rich people thinking they can freeload off others work, because they have capital.
1 Like
Thanks for sharing. I will check it out.
Would you please clarify your thoughts on this proposal? There is only one proposal on the table at this time as well as may other potential ideas, so your comments about “both” solutions has me curious what you have interpreted from the discussion. I also don’t understand what you mean about reducing the barrier to entry or reducing voting rewards as an interpretation of this proposal. I don’t think that is what would happen with this proposal at all, so I’d like to better understand your thoughts.
Playing devil’s advocate. I think we have a clear need for continued investment at this stage in the network. There is value added from people who are willing to provide the capital needed to keep the network running/growing. I agree with @ildefons that we haven’t really achieved the level of proliferation needed to push away capital investment.
1 Like
I am not a techie, so I can relate to your sentiment here as well as the struggles of anyone who is forced to use CLI to interface with their neurons. Do you have any ideas for actionable solutions to the non-techie part of the problem?
The 4 day period is a lifesaver for those that haven’t automated voting yet. 24 hours is too high of a burden to most people. For example, I have a personal commitment to my family to not use my phone on Saturdays and Sundays as much as it can be avoided. At 4 days you need to check twice a week to vote on everything. I’d argue that this could fit almost every schedule. Holidays and vacations are an issue, but that is why we have the following.
3 Likes
lol you’re tired of capitalism while profiting off it. So why sell tokens in the first place? why list on exchanges and make big launch event and advertising? Oh yeah devs should all get rich, dumping on the bad greedy investors. sorry but this doesn’t make sense to me. collect money from people to start a company and then shit on your investors because they didn’t add value?
I think proxy voting has been the choice of many people. Imagine that everyone takes some time to vote. This is unrealistic and complex. It will only keep people away from this complex stacking. For most people, time is the most precious thing. This is just my idea, not my suggestion.
1 Like
These are your two proposal changes
#1
This increases the financial barrier to entry of submitting a proposal, which is a form of censorship - it’s asking people to pay more to participate in politics.
#2
This disincentivizes voting participation by rewarding users less for voting, at a time when we want to increase or at least maintain governance voting participation.
sorry I can’t offer any advice, just wanted to point out that by making things more and more complicated the barrier for entry keeps rising. I do respect your work, and do try to follow your train of thought. The whole issue of spamming governance proposal is a direct consequence of messing with voting rewards in the first place, imho.
4 Likes