SNS Generic Nervous System Function Restrictions

[wpb]

@Lorimer

Inflation based renumeration makes sense though.

This is how node providers are incentivised, and it appears to have worked very well so far. Network security depends just as much on diligent voters as on reliable node providers.

@Lorimer

A parallel can be drawn between onboarding node providers and electing reviewers (ones who can convince the NNS that they are reliable, skilled and diligent).

@Lorimer

@wpb

Grants for Voting Neurons program has proven that people will do the work if their efforts are funded appropriately

I personally think it’s done such a good job that it should be formalised into the NNS, in the same sort of way as node providers are selected by the NNS and rewards periodically minted to them by the NNS. Re-elections would make the process competitive, driving reviewers to push the limits and keep sharp.

I fully agree and hope this is where we are heading. I’d like to see more people in the community talking about these kinds of governance incentives, especially if we truly value decentralization. I really like the parallels you are drawing with node provider remuneration. It’s a great model.

@Lorimer

I think the fact that the NNS can mint ICP also makes a treasury largely redundant.

I agree minting ICP is redundant to a NNS treasury, but I don’t really see them as different from each other. The framework that would have to be built to incentivize public good and technical governance participation would require new work processes, NNS voting, and community oversight either way. To be honest, I don’t really care which method is used as long as technical proposal reviews and protocol level code contributions some day become an incentivized way to actively participate in NNS governance. Inflation based remuneration make a lot of sense to me and may not stir up as much discomfort as a treasury.