The purpose of this idea is to increase the quality of proposals, prevent spam attacks against the NNS, and encourage high quality proposals while avoiding punishing those who submit them.
- Increase proposal stake substantially, tethered to value in XDR. For example: 200 XDR, or ~21 ICP at current prices. Can be increased as necessary if there’s a time with lots of spam, and decreased after. It could even automatically scale based on the volume of proposals within a certain timeframe.
- Add a “Bad/Spam” button when voting. Proposals where over 50% of the voting power that voted on them decides that they are Bad/Spam have their stake burned.
- Don’t burn the stake of proposals that are rejected, but not decided to be Bad/Spam.
First and foremost, the idea of keeping the fee for rejected proposals low is to make it so that the NNS is open and accessible to the common, everyday user. I think this idea is misguided and needs to be reevaluated.
In the future, the NNS will primarily be driven by traditional organizations and DAOs that represent hundreds, thousands, or even millions of individuals. The organizations will naturally have access to large amounts of money which can be used to do things like submitting proposals. The idea of protecting the rights of lone individuals to submit any proposals they want is NOBLE, sure, but logically there’s no reason to give individuals preferential treatment by keeping the financial risk so low. And if an individual does want to submit a proposal themselves without going through an organization, they should be willing to take on a substantial financial risk in order to bring their proposal to the attention of the global stage, or use crowdfunding to secure the necessary funds. After all, proposals demand close attention and consideration from all NNS participants. Close attention and consideration has a cost, and the fee needs to reflect that.
However, it’s important to avoid discouraging the submission of high quality proposals because of the financial risk of them being rejected. Therefore, rejection alone should not be the reason for having one’s stake burned. Only rejection of low quality/spam proposals should be burned.
To make this work, a third button needs to be added along with Accept and Reject. Call it, for example, the “Bad/Spam” button. This button will act like a Reject, but also add the neuron’s voting power (and the power of its followers) to the “Spam Pool” for that proposal. When voting is closed, if the “Spam Pool” is over 50% of the total voting power that participated in that proposal, the stake is burned. Otherwise, if the proposal is rejected but the “Spam Pool” is LESS than 50%, the stake is returned.
Clicking the button should prompt the user with a message detailing the guidelines, which also says that the user should only use this option if the proposal violates the guidelines for a good proposal, and to vote Reject otherwise. The user then has to click again to Confirm.
It’s up to the community to decide what exactly the guidelines will be, but here are some preliminary ideas:
Be Specific - Any numerical values should be decided ahead of time, and details of implementation should be specific enough to be immediately actionable.
- BAD - “Proposal to increase rejection cost of proposals” (doesn’t specify how much)
- BAD - “Proposal to implement some new feature” (doesn’t give details of how it would be implemented)
Be Meaningful - Proposals should make sense in the context of the network and be able to be meaningfully implemented in the software. Off-topic and nonsense should be considered Bad/Spam. The same goes for miscategorized proposals.
- BAD - “Proposal to increase my staking rewards by abusing the weighting system”
- BAD - “Proposal to annoy everyone with offensive pornographic images”
Be Well-written and Complete - Proposals should be well-written and formatted to make them easily understandable in and of themselves, without needing too much background knowledge or referring to other sources. In cases where other sources need to be referenced, links should be provided. Links to relevant discussion threads on various forums should also be provided. Proposal should make use of charts/graphs/other images if needed.