Temperature Check Proposal – Introduce NNS Treasury

After some times and a lot of reading, i will vote no on treasury proposal. Crowdfunding sound better than treasury. I know my vote is somewhere 0.00000001 but every vote is important. Treasury sound good but cand more damage on long terrm and im here for long term

1 Like

Oh look its another tokenomics proposal that ultimately messes with peoples rewards, seriously can you people not go one week without trying to rob us

1 Like

Hooooo my lord. Based Indeed

This is an old proposal topic. It is not current.

If an NNS Treasury will make the IC a better protocol, then I support it.

Remeber me the next time you advocate to tamper or “fix” the tokenomics

Yes, @dfisher, an NNS treasury or community fund controlled by a decentralized authority would be a game changer if conflicting priorities could be rationally resolved. However, we first need to understand that the NNS is currently not capable of prioritization, since it relies only on approval voting, like all DAOs. Approval voting implicitly assumes that all proposals are effectively independent of each other and not in direct conflict as “alternatives” to be prioritized (e.g., competing for the same limited funds in a resource allocation context, as you describe). In short, I would strongly support such a treasury fund eventually, but definitely not with the NNS as it exists today (i.e., regardless of whether DFinity becomes fully decentralized or even is not allowed to vote). My arguments here directly address the concern in this thread from @bjoernek and other DFinity members about “whether the current grant process could be steered via NNS voting.”

Atomizing decision-making authority is generally not a difficult task to initiate when almost everyone agrees (as we already do) that there should be no dictator. However, resolving the conflicts between individual priorities most certainly is difficult, especially when those conflicts grow exponentially as decision authority is atomized. Many other complications can arise too, such as when decision makers have different confidence or familiarity levels regarding certain alternatives, or when they have varying levels of expertise on different decision criteria (e.g., performance vs. cost vs. end user experience benefits).

I am currently scoping out my PhD project that is officially kicking off next year. A significant focus of mine will be to address this collective prioritization problem, which actually has quite a long history in multiple academic fields. This problem is far more complex than it first appears, as outlined in my first (and second) posts on this forum yesterday, linked below:

If someone at DFinity is interested in collaborating on a mock-up of a voting front end (on the Internet Computer, of course!), then perhaps we could experiment on different solutions together as I work on building out an algorithmic back end during my PhD project. A front end should not be that difficult to mock up fairly quickly. It would just have to include a more robust capture of prioritization data beyond an up or down vote on a single proposal. Other researchers should also be encouraged to experiment independently with their own algorithmic back ends based on any pilot voting data generated.

Computational social choice as a nascent field of research offers a rich set of options to address this collective prioritization problem, so it would be wise for DFinity to collaborate with multiple researchers to pursue multiple potential solutions. DFinity has the largest team of research cryptographers on the planet. So the intellectual benefits of leveraging a healthy combination of diverse knowledge and friendly competition to solve difficult computing problems should already be quite familiar to everyone here. I personally believe that such a diverse intellectual environment is what made the Internet Computer possible. The IC protocol already transcends far beyond the scope and potential impact of any other blockchain. I also believe that this is what could make the Internet Computer the future of the entire Internet – to allow it to transcend even beyond what many say is impossible.

As DFinity correctly stated in the past, the NNS is truly the “crown jewel” of the Internet Computer. However, it is also the IC’s most vulnerable single point of failure in achieving its grander vision for humanity. That is no doubt why the NNS persists as the IC’s most publicly criticized feature in generating FUD hysteria. In my view, the challenge ahead of us is clear: if we cannot cross the prioritization chasm in DAO governance, then I fear that this crown jewel might eventually be lost as the FUD hysteria begins to take root in reality.

The central issue here is much bigger than a treasury fund proposal. Using the NNS as it exists today to prioritize competing resource allocations of any sort would only expose its fundamental weakness more explicitly. This would lead to more FUD hysteria as “infighting and politicking” inevitably erupt into public view. When the heavy hand of dictatorial power must publicly intervene to resolve these conflicts in an unavoidably arbitrary fashion, it would uncomfortably remind everyone which trusted, centralized authority has always been required to make such resource allocation decisions. No conspiracy would even be necessary if it could easily be painted as one.

4 Likes

Check what Cardano’s Project Catalyst has done in the management of the treasury. They have resolved this prioritization problem through an appropriate frontend,allowing stakers to vote while assigning priority.

2 Likes

Thank you for the suggestion, @singularity. However, it looks like Cardano’s Catalyst Voting app is just another form of yes/no approval voting without any prioritization input from individuals, per the documentation page linked below. The user interface and workflow to capture votes appears to be very user friendly, which could be useful to emulate in some respects. However, none of that does anything to address the prioritization problem, which relates to how the votes are aggregated based on every individual’s ordered list of priorities. If I am missing something based on my admittedly cursory review, then please point me to a relevant documentation link.

1 Like

I see what you mean. Cardano’s catalyst does not provide each individual a way to rank proposals. It does a summation of total votes that each proposal got from all voters to determine which ones should come top. What you are referring to is Ranked-choice voting, which would achieve what is seen the the video here: Ranked Choice Voting - FairVote

Ranking would certainly describe the input data, but instant-runoff voting (IRV) is what is being referred to in your link as the collective decision function. This method is arguably better than the predominant plurality method used in our placebo political “democracies” of today, but it is really only appropriate for single-winner elections, not for the full prioritization necessary for resource allocations. Moreover, IRV can sometimes produce what many would consider to be very irrational and unacceptable final results based on certain vote aggregation criteria and input data.

1 Like

Very interesting ser.
You could be a great help for the community. Thanks for share your knowledge

1 Like