Way forward on spam - Proposal for tactical fix

I’m in but seriously it is illegal gotten gains and confiscate they can’t come forward and the neuron is locked in. no escape root.

Not a line anyone should want to cross, ownership is ownership and that has to be a constant for a blockchain to be trustworthy. It is dirty money but It’s not our job to play judge and jury with peoples finances, that would be a governments job.

However, there is nothing wrong with having a long memory, in case his name shows up again. On that note, nothing wrong with stopping further dirty money by voting yes on this posts proposal either. The APY has really gone to peoples heads.

I didn’t cross a line and it is our right to vote. We wouldn’t have to involve anyone. dog boy would have to call the police and law and that would show him as the criminal he is and look at you protecting his behaviour, your mate. Your inaction and protective behaviour is why dog boy feels he can do as he wants.

After giving it further thought, I believe that the spam is not harming the ecosystem and I would rather see a permanent solution implemented such as 55651 - Followee confirmation. In fact, I think decentralization has improved based on the steady increase of total voting participation as well as the sudden increase that occurred when this proposal was submitted. We have now Rejected 20 spam proposals by Absolute Majority because of this increased participation. This is the first time ever that proposals have been decided by Absolute Majority when the initiating vote that executed liquid democracy was not cast by DFINITY. This is happening without default following that was configured on all neurons in the first year after genesis. I would rather allow total voting participation (and therefore decentralization) to continue to improve until a permanent spam solution can be implemented.

I know the DFINITY Growth team expressed concerns about the spam proposals. Perhaps a message worth presenting to new devs should be that decentralization is improving, which should resonate with them. Also, perhaps articles should be written for the DFINITY medium blog that state the real voting rewards that are being observed from governance participants. The dashboard and the DFINITY articles still quote the annualized voting rewards as if all neurons were always voting. This is misleading and perhaps an educational opportunity missed so far. Why not publish the real data that voting rewards for the 8 year dissolve delay has been 35 - 45% for neuron owners that are voting and 5-10% for neuron owners that are not voting. It seems that would have two positive results…attract new users and cause existing users to review their voting strategy. Just like the articles that are published previously, this would not be a promise of voting rewards. All it needs to be is a statement of fact along with educational information about how best to participate in governance based on the rules that are in place today.


I am all for long-term thinking vs. short-term gratification. That’s why I hesitated before voting on this one. We all want the IC to win out in the long term.

All that said, in my opinion the downside caused by spam was much lower than the upside caused from incentives to actively participate in governance and increase decentralization. It’s important to remember we have a ton of whales through zone 2 (end of 2023) that are dissolving and I’d rather not have rewards go to them.

Moreover I was earning a much higher yield personally. I’m happy to sacrifice in the short term if I think I’ll ultimately be better of owing to a better system. I’m just not sure this proposal does that.

And that’s why as a voting member of ICPM I was one of the 5 that voted no (but lost).


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.


A couple comments on this statement:

  1. Do you think the issue has been fixed? Cause to me this looks only like a stopgap that will make it less urgent for the foundation to prioritize a true solution.
  2. We only “fixed” the good aspect of spam proposals, boosted rewards, anyone can still submit questionable content and make the IC look bad in the public eye.
  3. Those who voted yes accepted to sacrifice boosted rewards for active users and a staking incentive for potential newcomers in favour of VCs to fix the issue only apparently, possibly further delaying a fix the community already voted for months ago, doesn’t seem like a smart move in my opinion.

as they could be dozens or hundreds a day

They could but there’d be no monetary incentive to have that many, infact this proposal doesn’t stop anyone from submitting spam 100 proposals if he wants to spend enough ICPs.

1 Like

Yes, I do think that, from now on, the spam proposals won’t be incentivized enough.

I fully agree on this, and we are lucky for not having seen some horrors published through the NNS yet.

I disagree on the description of the situation as a sacrifice : people initially decided to stake with known rates of staking. The maximum was supposed to be globally around 32%, at the genesis, and to decrease gradually. So even if it is dynamical, we were supposed to be hoping an ATH rate of 32% a year. Months later, we suddenly felt to around 20,6% (in December), and people were very upset. After that, began the spam, and active voters got used to daily get more rewards, but they should not have got used to this, as it was an abnormal situation. But now, some days, when people « only » get 0,09% of rewards rather than the 0,11% they are waiting for, I read « why so low rewards today ? » from them. But the rate of reward should be 0,06% a day currently. The abnormal rates became normal for a lot of stakers. But it is not. Such rates of rewards have never been promised and to my opinion, if newcomers don’t come to IC eventually because they won’t get 35% of rewards, good for IC and us. Anyway, to me, the success of IC won’t come from the quantity of stakers, but from a massive adoption thanks to massively used dapps (as having ICP staked is not necessary to use the IC).

Lastly, I don’t get why you see the adoption of this proposal as in favor of VCs, so I can’t answer about this point. But please, précise your point and I ll answer if I can.

But again, this position is only mine and doesn’t necessarily represent ICPMN’s one.


IC is not a serious blockchain if dead people are still voting and can make a difference for a proposal to pass or not. This is way worst than spam. I can only imagine IC detractor from other blockchain posting and trashing about this unbeliveable fact.
Way worst if one (or few) of those was a whale with millions of voting power.

Proposal 55651 has to be implemented as a priority ASAP to my opinion.


Thank you for providing your explanation @Roman. You are one vote out of 12 voting members for ICPMN, each of whom are asked to consider each proposal objectively, vote with our individual convictions, and provide a summary explanation to the community for why we voted how we voted. You have done an excellent job of providing this feedback.


Thank you @wpb. And I think really important to insist, as you did, on the fact that this vote was almost maximally splitted (7/5), so the purpose of decentralisation of ICPMN’s neuron is fully satisfied.


I am 1 of the 12 voting members for the ICPMN Neuron and I wanted to share my thoughts and reasoning for how I voted on this proposal. I admittedly was torn for some time on how to vote on this particular proposal. The spam proposals, although extremely annoying in nature were indeed showcasing the need for a solution that prevents the current incentive to attack the governance mechanism for the Internet Computer. Eventually, I landed on personally rejecting this particular proposal due to the fact that in my opinion this proposal is by no means a long term solution to the problem exposed here. Furthermore, a big part of my decision was an attempt to represent the communities best interest for the future of the eco-system and for many their investments into their futures. My rejection of the proposal was not because I believe the current state is the right state; but rather the proposal lacked the ability to pragmatically solve our current state for the long term in a meaningful way. Although, the vote did not align to my own personal vote to reject the proposal I confidently stand behind the collective decision the ICPMN neuron made. I am privileged to be amongst 11 of the greatest ambassadors and minds who represent various community members within the IC. Our split vote represents our groups ability to operate based on our own personal convictions whilst always keeping the priority on improving and representing the community.


I can’t speak for the VCs, but I did a bit of analysis on the seed round investors. About 2/3 of the top 50 investors have set the majority of their 49 neurons to dissolve. Every month you can watch the transfers to Coinbase and the subsequent market sells.

This proposal just means that the latter 30 out of the 49 will have more ICP to dump on the market.

I think the DFinity team overestimated the loyalty of the people who bought in in 2017 sadly. Not saying spam is a good thing but it did have the handy side effect of moving ICP from people who were going to dump it anyway to the long term holders.

Maybe we just need to let these people dissolve all their Neurons for a certain amount of pennies on the dollar and get it over with.


Oh ok I get it ! Because these neurons were not voting you mean. Ok. Yes i definitely agree with you on this.

So lets say you’ve got a hypothetical whale with 1 million ICP locked up, and this proposal reduces the APY (roughly) from 40% to 20%. That’s 200,000 ICP a year less for that whale.

That’s 547 ICP a day in rewards that is redirected from the whale to people who absolutely don’t care about the network, and are probably dumping their tokens every month.

I think somebody worked out that one spam proposal per day (at a weighting of 20) would be a 60% or so increase in rewards. If this whale spent 200 ICP a day on spam proposals (10 ICP * 20 proposals), he’d make > 300 ICP.

Now that’s just one guy (edit: or girl) who owns 0.2% of the overall ICP. Get a few of them together and it starts to make a lot more financial sense to spam the network.

The issue with voting yes on this proposal is that it doesn’t fix the problem, it makes it worse.

  1. It reduces the incentive for people to lock up ICP as the APY is halved, which puts downward pressure on the price.
  2. It moves ICP from the people holding to the people dumping, also putting downward pressure on the price.
  3. It doesn’t even fix the problem!

EDIT: “Price go down” is bad for us all, not just simply due to the greed of an individual, but at some point Dfinity (now 270 people) will sell their ICP to pay salaries.


I agree with you on the principle and I have always been.

So, to explicit my thought when I wrote this : de jure the problem is not solved, because such a situation as the one you describe is still possible, but de facto the problem is solved, because the probability that such a situation occurs is very low ; so much lower than the probability of someone spamming the NNS with a weight of 20 for governance proposals anyway.

So, of course, I never thought that the problem was absolutely solved, cause, again, by principle, we could figure some situation with massive whales or organisations of a lot of little neurons to run a spam campaign.

We have to recognize that such spamming campaigns were not existing before the rewards weight modification. I does not mean they won’t exist anymore once the changing implemented, because now, people have begun spam and it increases the probability that some people continue this effort, but again, the risk is far lower than with the current system.

1 Like

I just don’t think it reduces the chance, it’s just a numbers game and the spam proposals can easily be automated.

Yes, there’s a chance that the people funding the proposals have 0.01% of the ICP and this will make the spam not cost-effective to carry out. When a group that owns 0.2% of the ICP can collude to make profit (and the more collusion the more profit per individual), that’s a low bar to entry.


In an automation case, you would be right : we would have done a terrible mistake. But to be honest, only very few people currently make proposals for ability/will reasons, so I have doubts on a sudden emergence of such profiles. But let us be clear, I am agree with you on that risk and on the fact that it would make the NNS look worse.

Maybe the price action made a few people change their minds. Certain individuals dumped all the way down from $500 to $5, and were still being rewarded with bonus ICP for doing nothing other than hurting the platform they invested in.

I just don’t want to see 100s of spam proposals per day, so I hope you’re right hah. May have to invest in a new mouse as a hedge.

1 Like

About this unfairness and willing to reward specifically active voters, I agree with you. I see a lot of people claiming that they are 8 years gang and that this proposal is unfair, but IMO, to reward 8 years stakers, we should use a proper proposal about VP and rewards rather than making it collaterally with a proposal which was only designed ti increase decentralization : the difference of weight.

So, to favorise the 8 years stakers, we just more simply can cast a proposal about this : @wpb, @Kyle_Langham and @ayjayem made a beautiful proposal about this months ago. Wenzel also proposed a new model of rewarding when started a discussion about offering to very short stakers a reward too. So, I deeply agree with you, but we must fight this problem properly rather than drifting it from a proposal whose the aim was different.

About this, you are welcome to follow our neuron : we vote immediately on spam proposals, but we let delay on the other ones to let people vote by themselves if they want. So, feel confortable following us without risking to see your vote “stolen” : you won’t have to vote on spam but will still be able to vote on other ones until the last day.

1 Like