For a bit of perspective, the first ARPANET message was sent in 1969. AOL discs didn’t start arriving until late 1990s. I’m not endorsing technical entitlement, but I get it…we are at the very beginning of this thing. Motoko doesn’t have a proper string search algorithm. To expect google level usability and approachability is just not possible at the moment.
4 Likes
Didn’t expect it at all. just telling you that I got a very different vibe in the 90s. just because someone is really good at writing code doesn’t mean he shouldn’t value the guy that designed the motherboard of his PC. People have different skillsets and community is all about mutual respect.
4 Likes
Agreed the 4 days is necessary on governance proposals, but the question was in relation to non governance proposals. Are there any non governance proposals that you think need a 4 day voting period at this time? All non governance proposals are currently executed by Absolute Majority because everyone follows Dfinity. I can’t think of any that would need to be more than 24 hrs.
Perhaps I’m missing something but how will this proposal solve the spam issue? If anything it would make it worse cause the few stakers active daily in the NNS will get more rewards.
Ok, that’s what I suspected. You took that from the section that specifically says these are not proposed as long term solutions (because of the reasons you are citing). Would you please go back and read the proposal again? I think you may find it actually says something else. Here is the actual proposal…
Maybe. I’m hesitant to agree though. Simply because fiat also goes through inflation and who know what the buying power of $200 will be 2,5,or 10 years from now.
I’m not shitting on investors. I have used strong words, because I have strong experiences. I am FOR investing. I am FOR capitalism. However, I’m also for aligning value appropriately. Investors are given way too much pull. There is NOTHING special about an investors capital. Any investor can invest money. The devs shouldn’t get rich , either. They have their value, and it should be aligned appropriately. But, I’m not for shitting on anyone. I want all parties to earn their fair share. My point is that investors are often entitled, but don’t earn the “respect” they are given. if you are solely an investor, then your value is in where you put your investments. Stay in your lane, investors.
Well I think that proposals can be set only by verified persons.
To be verified, you must be a part of DAO
The proposals must be set only by the represenation of the DAOs that proposer belongs
DAOs can set daily proposals
DAOs are able to set group of governance proposals once per 3 months.
DAOs are responsible for the executations of their proposals.
To set a governance proposal must follow a protocol of rules and orders in order to be eligible for vote.
What do you think of that?
1 Like
Messing around with tokenomics shouldn’t be easy as it is right now, on other chains changing the smallest thing about the protocol is a huge deal, on the IC you just need 3% of voting power, this has to change as it is unfair towards 8 year stakers and makes staking less appealing for outsiders and newcomers.
I think at the very least the minimum VP required to pass a proposal has to be raised and for every changes to tokenomics there should be a 30 days timeframe to allow unhappy stakers to immediatly dissolve their neuron, such a change wouldn’t just be fair towards stakers but also incentivize good tokenomics proposals, cause if something were to pass without a clear majority there is a risk of lots of tokens being released on the market.
2 Likes
Thats how you make a not very decentralized system less decentralized. Who decides what is a DAO and what stops a DAO from spamming proposals?
One thing I’m starting to think about…if ICP is just a voting token, and doesn’t want to be a security, then it shouldn’t have a “real money” counter value, should it? Let’s face it, I staked my neuron because I was going to be able to participate in building the network, yes, but also for the passive income, and I think most people staked because of that initial promise. A new series of questions are arising atm. Why should anyone lock for 8 years with the NNS for a 20% APY when you can stake on Binance with a 120 days lock for 25%+ APY guaranteed, without the burden of voting manually, or assuring you follow someone that votes for you?
One could say that contributing to building the network is like contributing to your local government to keep building your surrounding society. So you pay taxes in order to receive services like healthcare, road maintenance, legal assistance, etc. If ICP is not a security, if it’s not a way of receiving passive income, where’s the benefit? What am I, like others, getting except glory for building an utopic future?
Might have gone a bit off-topic I guess, but the last few days got me wandering a bit. I don’t have solutions in mind, I don’t have a background in political, economic, nor technical topics. I’m just throwing out what I think could be food for thought.
3 Likes
DAO must be a followee
You are right that active stakers would get more rewards initially. In some ways it is the mathematical equivalent of submitting an infinite number of governance proposals every day without submitting any spam proposals, at least in the beginning. That’s why it removes the incentives to spam the NNS with governance proposals. They are no longer needed if the spamming is happening for the purpose of higher voting rewards. Those higher rewards for active neurons currently come at the expense of inactive neurons not voting on governance.
To be clear though, the reason this proposal can be an effective tool is that it incentivizes all neuron owners to actively participate in governance. It would be a very strong incentive. Anyone who is staking can intentionally configure their neurons. If they did so, then ideally we would have 95+% participation in governance topics. Anyone who is getting zero voting rewards will eventually ask questions, educate themselves, and select Followees based on intentional decisions instead of default neuron configurations that lead to a completely passive approach and lack of participation in governance.
catch 22 of crypto: how to be a security while pretending not to be a security
2 Likes
I really like this idea. It should be shaped further. It would disincentivize changes to tokenonics for sure. I suppose a counter argument is that people who want out of their NNS stake would be more likely to push for changes. That seems like a loophole that would need to be addressed.
1 Like
Not at the moment. I think the others are fine at 24 hrs.
If the NNS is the hub of democracy for the IC, then I think there should be representatives that make policies, bills etc., and submit them on behalf of the voters, like in real life. The difference with real life is, that if I decide that I don’t relate anymore with the values that one of the representatives I follow pushes forward, I just unfollow and vote manually or pass my voting power to someone else and don’t have to wait for another political campaign to occur. So, maybe, the idea of different DAOs, like @Heihachi previously said, that treat governance on the IC and commit to proposing, deliberating, and executing isn’t that bad after all. So a nice set of rules and guidelines should be redacted. Long-term perspective.
Short-term perspective, I think that a 3% “Yes” threshold could be good, as well as the implementation of a “Irrelevant” “Ignore” or whatever you want to call it button.
Remember that seed investors didn’t know their neurons will be locked until after launch day. They are forced into this NNS governance participation. So naturally many are not participating. They wanted exit, but none was given. That wasn’t fair either. Foundation really screwed up hard on this launch thing, had the seed investors been able to provide more liquidity, ICP price would not started at US$700, and we (the community who believed in this project) would have a better position to present to the world.
8 Likes
What is fair and what not fair is not always clear.
We must accept the consequences of our decisions.
Every actions, every vote counts and matters.
Otherwise we wouldnt have seen the German of Nazis.
The biggest problem with the voting neurons is that anyone can have multiple anchors and neurons to affect the voting procedure.
On contrast to real life where you can vote only once in each election.
I think this is most important to be solved
1 Like