Should we make a distinction between active and inactive voters?

I’d like to have a discussion about stakeholder participation. Specifically, I would like the community to address the following questions:

  1. Going forward, should we make a distinction between “active voters” and “inactive voters”?

If the answer to #1 is yes:

  1. What is the minimum expectation for someone to qualify as an “active voter”?
  2. How could this impact governance participation long term?
  3. How might it impact voter diversification?

There is no proposal associated with this topic. If something actionable comes out of the discussion we can update this thread of spin off a new topic.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I look forward to chatting with you.

1 Like

Making such distinction would be an error for at least 2 reasons:

  1. It would be a deterrent for new passive investors unable to dedicate sufficient time to read, participate in the forum and therefore to have an informed decision.
  2. It would force many existing investors to simply pick an arbitrary option (any option) to collect the “reward” which would be bad to extract an informed aggregated opinion from the poll

Yes we should, if you want to earn rewards you should at least check into the ecosystem once every few months and see whats happening, it doesnt take much time and its definitely easier than running a validator with your own hardware, if stakers can just follow a random neuron and then ignore whats going on for years its bad for everyone cause it means bad actors will keep the voting power longer than they should.

I even suggested a couple months ago to make follow a temporary thing that needs to be refreshed every once in a while, just like you have to confirm support to a political party after a couple years.


I disagree completely:

“check into the ecosystem once every few months” is not enough to have an sufficiently informed opinion to vote governance proposals. Many of these proposals are highly technical with widespread technical and economic implications.

1 Like

I agree. I have a hard time seeing how someone just logging into the app every so often makes them any more active than someone who doesn’t log in but is still following a neuron for votes.

Thanks for pointing this out @Zane. I remember that someone suggested this but I couldn’t remember who it was. I’m not entirely against this idea. Can you provide a link to your original topic?

You don’t have to do that if you follow a neuron that you trust, just check in every couple months and see if something major happened: any big changes (i.e recent governance updates)? did the neuron I follow fuck up? etc…

People keep up with politics on a daily basis for nothing cause at the end of the day there isn’t much they can do about it, but keeping up with a project they invested money in that even pays them an interest is too much? If thats the case then I’d rather have less ICP staked on the NNS but be sure stakers are up to date with the ecosystem, the NNS is ICP’s government, if stakers follow a random neuron and come back after years its bad for everyone, to do a real life comparison imagine if US voters noped out of any political news and Bush were still president.

1 Like