Oh because you believe that a named neuron is per say a representative of a community in the very beginning ? I dont think it has to be the case, people could be sharing their ideas and vision and then community will back up their vote… or not !
#1 - You are saying the chicken was here before the egg -
#2 - You discreditate others because they dont believe in #1
#3 - You provide random self-made invented limitating requirement :
ample time for deliberating, what is enough, 1 day ? 10 days ?
choosing a platform, why would that be all in one place ?
To justify that you are voting no for something that have totally no consequences ( What is Saurons named neuron destructive power again ? 0 )
To wrap up all this in a understandable manner :
If Sauron wanted to have the destructive power of a neuron, he would just call himself Halbrand in the forum of your choice and during the duration of your choice.
Conclusion : What you suggest do not work and is barely useful, its a waste of time. I hope you spend more time than that thinking about tokeneconomics.
We should reject all proposals that are not linked to a platform where we can ask questions. I would rather we require dfinity forum but any forum would be better. Bare minimum man. The standards are so low
One could argue that a proposal to create a named neuron, which has something actionable built in to it, is therefore more consequential than a motion proposal which may never effect any change.
I think that becoming a named neuron gives people a platform and as a community we probably want to make sure we aren’t enabling people who seem to be acting in bad faith or misleading people to gain a following.
Thank you for your comments. I try to make a summary of conclusions.
Regarding the specific case: Possible fraud, rejection.
Regarding general validations: Request that all “Register Known Neuron” be in the forum in principle and that a minimum of 1 week be established to make the proposal, if not fulfilled, it is rejected. That time is given so that the proposer makes himself known and validates his identity in some way.
Be it a single person or a company.
Also to take the view of what kyliux says, it is true that we have to think in some more general way. Think when there are hundreds of neurons that ask for the same thing, what steps must be followed? Should we write it and publish it before they make the proposal?
Another point of view, @kyliux, you have to understand that what they say (@cryptoisgood // @paulyoung // @wpb) they say so that there is no fraud or false identity. If the requirements are very low, it can happen.
I am aware that my first proposal was met with hostility, including calls to jail me or confiscate my ICP. 87478 will, of course, not pass. It did make an important statement and spawned a lot of discussion, so I think it was valuable and worth the 10 ICP.