The purpose for the known neuron is to enable me to participate in proposal reviews for season 2 of the Voting Neuron Grants, specifically focusing on Participant Management & Node Admin as well as SNS & Neurons Fund as part of CO.DELTA. I will post more details about that in the appropriate thread later on.
I know there is a known neuron for Draggincorp but that is managed by @borovan so I thought in the interests of transparency I should create my own using my forum name as that is what most people are familiar with.
If you think that should be the case, you should make a proposal. You should also include what should happen to the existing known neurons that have less than that.
TLDR: I think @Thyassa’s announcement post speaks for itself. I’m also familiar with the level of due diligence that she brings to NNS governance matters, and she’s been an influential force in initiatives to improve the IC, including node provider rules and regulations, SNS standards, and much more.
The NNS is very lucky to have active participants like this, and it’s awesome to see the known neurons list steadily growing (particularly with neurons that are actually following through with governance obligations).
I understand your point, but it’s misplaced. Thyassa is heavily staked in the IC. So is DFINITY, but their official known neuron has only 10 ICP staked. Known neurons are for following - they don’t necessarily speak to the stake of an individual.
You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron if you found this analysis helpful.
CO.DELTA △
We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:
Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals
Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals
Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.
Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.
The idea of increasing min limit to 5k-10k is to reduce risk of shell neurons that work on getting voting power but they all follow 1 entity. If ICP gain adoption of 1+ mil developers, there might be a lot of new known neurons, as they are known, some people can contact them, pay some and they start following clusters. Having known neurons is bad overall, but this cant be removed, than at least need to limit the amount, and it can be done by limiting minimum ICP limit.
Summary: I am voting to ADOPT this known neuron proposal because I have observed Thyassa’s work over the last half year with respect to node provider proposals and she seems to be making credible, researched decisions and is almost always diplomatic in her forum discussions. I also appreciate the fact that she is interested in raising the bar for SNS projects. I may not always agree with her decisions, but I have respect for the fact that she has been rolling up her sleeves and getting deeply involved in NNS governance and has intentions to continue serving in that capacity moving forward. I wish more whales in the ICP ecosystem would engage in this way.
I agree. NNS investments are private and there should be no expectation that they are made public in order to participate in governance. This isn’t a governance system that is exclusive to the rich. It is open to everyone at all economic levels and it respects privacy. The claim that known neurons with low ICP staked don’t have skin in the game is false. I think it is safe to say that active known neurons, and the people who participate in voting for active known neurons, are some of the most dedicated, loyal, and passionate participants in the ICP ecosystem and the vast majority have a significant, but private, stake in the NNS.
About CodeGov CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron's Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
The reason I voted to reject is due to her constant conspiracies and lack of ability to provide evidence, as well as her inability to acknowledge facts when they don’t support her conspiracies.
Research was provided by Thyassa to DFINITY due to the nature of the issue, and you’re still seeing this unfolding (if you’re observant).
Thyassa’s profile is public, so anyone can easily check her activity on this forum. If yours were public then I think it would paint the picture of someone who cannot or will not absorb sound reasoning after repeated attempts to explain things in different ways.
As with the other thread, I will avoid responding to you further (for the reason explained above).
I’m rejecting the known neurons proposals. We don’t need more known neurons until the following interface in the NNS improves and looks something like: https://delegate.morpho.org/.
This is a great example. That would definitely be a step in the right direction. I’d like to see it taken one step further though and list the specific topics for which the reviewer claims credibility and reliability. When a known neuron is registered, it should be registered for specific topics that are approved by the NNS. When a neuron owner goes to select a known neuron for a specific topic, they should only be presented known neurons that have been approved by the NNS for that topic. Once we have those kinds of features, I think it makes more sense to scrutinize known neurons more closely and for the NNS to only approve the known neuron proposals that are qualified for those topics. In fact, every existing known neuron would need to go through this registration process for each specific topic. Until then I believe we should minimize gate keeping of known neurons.
