Voting no on all proposals that don’t have a link to here

yeah, apparently so.

The bar is on the floor. Bare minimum make a post on a public forum. If you want make a post and portal on dscvr but everyone needs time to talk to the person to make sure they are real and their proposal is real and possible.

Complaining doesn’t help anyone please post solutions.

So far, the ‘solutions’ on this forum have been absolutely terrible. Anyone with decent knowledge about web3 would laugh at this forum.

Although it is important to verify the proposers for stuff like front-end neurons, its also important to note that this is a centralized forum. At this point, the echo chamber is just getting louder.

@CatPirate @jsull9

I’m going to echo what @cryptoisgood has suggested. In fact, I will try to say it a little louder.


My suggestion would be to stop the gatekeeping, so that we’re more flexible.

Till NNS front-end has inbuilt features for discussing and submitting proposals, users can use both forum or twitter.

Create a standard application for front-end neurons ( not compulsory, also dont like this idea very much)

Check the requirements - Let proposers include their socials. If the proposer does not announce this in their official public socials, then the proposals can be rejected for acting in bad faith.


Here I say Twitter because DFINITY has a large influence on Twitter.

We could also make a proposal bot that aggregates governance proposals, and DFINITY could compile or retweet it twice a week (or once a week) on its Twitter.

1 Like

None of those solutions help with the impending problem which is that scammers and frauds are making proposals and we need time to essentially to background check them.

But I agree all of that would be helpful in the long run.

1 Like

I echo again what @cryptoisgood is saying.

These are great ideas and I was happy to see the new proposal topic from @CatPirate trying to formalize the suggestions, but they are medium to long term solutions. They don’t help now. I see no reason why we shouldn’t agree on minimum standards that can be voluntarily implemented now with the current resources.

Last time i looked, is hosted by cloudflare…

Isnt the purpose of ICP to build a fully fleshed out infrastructure/hosting service for the entirety of the internet, outside of the grip of web2 legacy services?
If so, why are we having the conversation here, on a competing platform that we eventually plan to make obsolete?

And dont come at me with “buh buh normies use web2/we need outreach/ease of use” garbage.


What do you expect from a DFINITY (@cryptoisgood) employee and a person who has ties with DFINITY ( @wpb )

– this post was DFINITY’s response to “Educating about tokenomics changes” – written by @wpb and published in Internet Computer Review.

Important to note that WPB had also published another article that contained more information in detail about the tokenomics changes

This is obscuring information. I don’t think I’m gonna bother saying anything else anymore.

That’s funny. I didn’t know I have ties to DFINITY.

its okay those who know, they know.

We are being extremely polite with you but your being increasingly unreasonable. I’m not trying to attack you and if you disagree make a portal on dscvr and create a competing community.

This post is my opinion and what I am doing and just like this is what I am doing you can do whatever you want.

I can think for myself. Sorry for being ‘rude’. Feel free to ignore me and block me. I am not interested in silly games. I’m here to decentralize NNS like every other builder working on IC.

I am not obliged to agree with you, ICPMN or DFINITY. While I try to be as polite as I can, I’ve learned a thing or two working on IC wrt this. NNS, IMO, is plagued with idiotic influencers and insider trading. But hey, that’s just my opinion.

PS: I’m not being paid to do this. - If that makes you feel any better.

I wouldn’t want to discuss proposals on the NNS frontend, it should be strictly reserved for functionality related to interacting with the NNS and the ICP ledger.

If you are not happy with this forum as a place for proposal discussion I think you can move it to any other forum you like.

1 Like

There is a telegram bot that does this.



This is probably due to the fact that this forum existed before mainnet launch and many many developers and supporters have an account and interact here. Discourse is incredibly feature rich and I guess until we don’t have something similary good on the IC it will be hard to convince people to move to a different place.

At this moment in time I personally don’t want to have the lengthy and complex discussions going on around governance in any of the projects available on the IC rn.

1 Like

Tbqh im not fond of using NNS for discussion either. Want to start with an inbuilt feature for submitting proposals. I dont want to burden NNS subnet or the front-end.

And I dont expect on-chain migration to happen anytime soon either.

1 Like

There is a bot on openchat as well.

I expect dfinity to announce the proposals and status on Twitter


This would be a great website to port to the IC. Although it is probably nontrivial given that Discourse is built on top of Postgres…