Way forward on spam - Proposal for tactical fix

Would Dfinity consider implementing proposal 55651 ASAP to fix the issue while simultaneously fixing other non sense issue like dead neurons owners still voting, inactive or lost account still voting and may change the course of the blockchain with their votes?

Does Dfinity made an analysis about the productivity as if it is more productive to deploy temporary measures to be reversed later on, thus loosing more time, than implementing the right one that was passed over 3 months ago?

I, and some others including @wpb , do not agree with the subjective asssesment provided by Dfinity about the proposale 55651. To me personally, it looks more like an excuse not to implement the proposal. I really hope I am wrong on this one though.

Proposal is clearly way less work, way less harder to program and implement then the modulation proposal 48623.

Transparency is really appreciated, when we have.

1 Like

Hi @coteclaude, as analysed in this thread, we would need to do some further design work on 55651 (Periodic confirmation of followees) before releasing it. In its current form it would not allow the roll-out of urgent hotfixes which we consider to be very important to keep the IC secure. This point was not considered during the deliberation of 55651 (and also DFINITY missed to point this out and consider this before the vote).

Can you elaborate on this, I don’t quite understand your point?

The governance participation rate is > 50% VP, which shows that voters are quite capable of reconfirming/updating their neuron follow choices every so often.

Sure, I am happy to provide further context!

The concern is that it currently takes several days to reject or approve governance approvals (and sometimes even the full 4 days plus wait for quiet given that we are just on the edge of having governance voting participation of more than 50%).

Periodic confirmation of followees would lead to similar voting participation on non-governance topics. If a really urgent update is needed (e.g. update of a subnet), waiting several days would pose a big security risk. Hence we do not recommend to implement 55651 without further enhancements.

Thanks for elaborating on the context

How did DFINITY feel about this same issue last year when the overall voting power staked was much, much lower?

As this potential was not addressed in the original proposal until after it passed, it could be considered an implementation (technical design) detail.

Has DFINITY taken any time to design or brainstorm any potential implementations to address their concerns? Or, since it was a community passed proposal did they expect the implementation and design to be fully baked/thought out and ready to go in the oven?

Also, does DFINITY expect the community to build their own solutions for community initiated and led (non-DFINITY) proposals that are passed through the NNS, or will DFINITY take on the part of implementing community led and passed proposals?

2 Likes

Thank you for your feedback!

I am not sure if I understand the question correctly. Given that we had default following for all topics last (governance and non-governance) we did not have a similar issue last year. Can you please elaborate a little bit more?

Yes agreed, if we can conclude on a small enhancement which makes this work, then we could consider this as an implementation detail.

And yes, we had a few brainstorming sessions within DFINITY R&D already on how to enhance this in a simple way. So far, we collected some good ideas (some of which were also touched upon in the forum) but did not find a quick solution yet.

In terms of the way forward: As mentioned here, we are fully committed to working with the community on a holistic spam prevention and voting enhancements after the major release of the SNS and suggest doing this in a new technical working group on governance.

could it be as simple as having a hotfix(or urgent proposals) follow category and so when the followees gets reset, it gets set to a default of following Dfinity on hotfixes?

4 Likes

I agree, there are simple fixes to the problem. Maybe Dfinity only likes complicated stuff :slight_smile:

Thi is a brilliant and so easy solution. Hope Dfinity will make a proposal for this. It is getting too expansive for us to do now.

1 Like

I will keep sending spam proposals if there is no other solution in September

3 Likes

Hi @ysyms, we are going to establish a Governance working group, where we will also cover spam prevention (and for example discuss the proposal from @rusty.scrivens above).

I think it would be great if you could provide input/participate in this working group! Short-term, as indicated by @wpb above, re-occurence of spam will most likely trigger an increase (or several increases) in the rejection fee.

3 Likes

Have we considered just not allowing any stranger with 10 icp to create proposals? Maybe only named neurons should be able to make proposals. This would incentives people to become a named neuron and remove spam. We would also need a way to impeach neurons. And we need a different mechanism for people to become named neurons as they would become gate keepers to their own competition.

This doesn’t help decentralization. Maybe you have a good idea for one proposal (ICP Jesse’s electricity consumption proposal), but you don’t want to vote on every governance proposal manually. In this case you should be able to submit the proposal without having a named neuron.

1 Like

So you work with named neurons to do it. Jesse could reach out to @wpb and ask him to make the proposal for him through icpmn

Motivation for spamming proposals will quickly change from increasing revenue to urging DFINITY to implement other plan and against lowering motion proposal weights or increasing costs to take away our high revenue

2 Likes

You just proved his point, if I have to ask someone who is already “in” to make a proposal the system isn’t decentralized.

Well then I guess we can’t stop spam :man_shrugging:t2:

There are other ways to stop spam and even if there weren’t i’d take that over more centralization.

Some solutions are like the behavior of some dictatorship, they don’t solve the problem, they kill the people who raise the problem

3 Likes

As I said before I don’t think this is an idea we should be throwing around like a given that it can be passed(and multiple times even).