Even with a 25 ICP reject cost, bait proposals remain prevalent. I propose increasing the minimum ICP required for a neuron to be eligible to submit proposals, instead of further raising the reject fee. This approach would allow us to penalize malicious proposers more effectively and discourage abuse at the source.
1 Like
I also voted to reject Proposal 134803 for the same reason.
Instead of raising the reject fee or increasing the minimum ICP to submit proposals (which doesn’t really help), I think a better solution is to hide proposals that won’t reach the 3% threshold by default in front-ends like NNS Dapp.
These proposals can’t pass anyway, so they only create noise.
That way we could freeze their neurons lol.
My main concern is that this will cause people to lose interest in proposals that don’t reach the threshold and allow whales to act as gatekeepers. If whales also lose interest, it could lead to: any proposer who doesn’t secure 3% neuron support in advance will have their proposal permanently hidden.
2 Likes
I’ve been exploring different ways to block malicious actors, and honestly, raising fees only makes the system less inclusive for new users or those with fewer resources. Maybe instead of just increasing costs, we should consider other criteria, like requiring a minimum neuron age to be able to submit proposals? That could better reflect long-term commitment without potentially contributing to spam.
1 Like
Doesnt help in what regard? Noise is subjective… Hiding doesnt addreess infinite yield… by submitting BS proposal to farm ICP via voting power that gives you more ICP than the cost of rejected proposal.
But if we assume, that the NNS is meant to be a global system open to everyone, we also have to accept that there are only 24 hours in a day and it’s simply not realistic for every participant to read and consider every single proposal. We need a system that ensures only meaningful proposals reach everyone’s attention.
If a proposal truly matters and has strong community support, then gathering at least 3% of voting power outside the main interface shouldn’t be a barrier. Especially since it still needs majority support to pass.
Maybe in the future, the NNS could become more user-friendly by making it easier for people who dedicate a few minutes a day to vote, instead of overwhelming them with hundreds of low-effort or unclear proposals.
2 Likes