Here is my view, as a voting member of ICPMN Neuron, about this proposal and why I voted, with no surprise, « yes ». I precise that, as voting member, we all vote autonomously, so my position is only mine and not ICPMN’s one.
For the record, here is the position that I had months ago.
Now, to precise my way of thinking :
In the first place, as the spam don’t provoke inflation, but just redistribute exclusively the rewards to the voters, the problem was obviously not about the fear of an inflation. And to be perfectly clear, if I had to choose, I am perfectly ok with the fact that voters have a rewards privilege.
My concern was about the aspect of the NNS and more globally of the IC : we all aim to see the IC become one of the three first blockchains. For this, we can’t afford a governance with a messy/dirty looking. We need a governance registry where serious and rigorous proposals are not diluted among fake proposals just designed to make profit. If the IC must be continued keeping its current aspect, with daily spams (and we are lucky, as they could be dozens or hundreds a day), it won’t be considered as a serious blockchain. Even if this spam don’t cause inflation, it has a heavy price : it could cause a brain drain eventually, as such proposals make our governance system look like not serious, since it could appear as a system whose a simple high school student can take advantage of, just to make money.
A Top class blockchain can’t have such proposals as « ambassadors » of its governance structuring. We need to think about what a blockchain’s governance must look like to attract the most brilliant spirits of the planet (or at least to prevent them to see a blockchain as a not serious one) : the spirits who will create the dapps which will bring masses to the IC, and clearly, such a blockchain’s governance does not look like ICP’s current governance proposals.