Thank you for the prompt and thoughtful response. I 100% agree with and endorse this proposal.
To play devils advocate with my endorsement:
If this proposal passes and the financial incentives to funding NNS spam are decreased significantly, the current spammer could become outraged that his/her income stream has dried up and spam the NNS for some additional amount of time, potentially with much more harmful and/or abusive content.
On the bright side, eventually they will run out of funding - as even whales have limits on what type of content they’d support voting on in the NNS.
How would DFINITY and/or the growth team then view this situation? Would they be able to wait out the negative content due to engineering constraints, or would it become a greater priority?
I actually believe they are. I consider myself an “active” member of the community, but stopped paying attention to my proposal telegram bot b/c it was 4 spam messages every single day. (See my follow up question to @Kyle_Langham below).
This is in large part due to the increased rejection cost proposal.
The falling price action is unfortunate, but it should not be tied to NNS rewards policy decisions unless the security of the IC is at stake. We can have a discussion about ICP price in a separate thread.
I agree the rewards weights have increased voter participation - but is there any data that spam has increased voter participation?
@Kyle_Langham, is there any data at DFINITY that would back this up, or show the current state of active (manual) votes cast versus passive (default) votes cast through followees?