Way forward on spam - Proposal for tactical fix

I’m for this. Voting on the spam is a pain in my ass. 15 attention minutes a day from developers focusing on creating value is a negative drain on over all ICP price and screws up the signal to noise ratio of people trying to keep up. An temporary fix would be very welcome while we explore long term options.

4 Likes

I’m voting against this proposal. I actively vote and use the NNS daily.

I do not give a sh*t about inactive users missing out.

Not my problem.

5 Likes

Connecting my ledger, merging maturity and voting on all governance proposals doesn’t take me more than 10 minutes, which I’d say are pretty well spent considering they give a considerable higher APY boost.

@Zane

Spending 10 minutes every day (for proposals that serve no purpose other than spam) multiplied by the number of developers on the IC is a huge waste of time.

If there are truly 1000 devs on the IC, that would be 10,000 minutes or 6.94 days of development wasted every day.

If we asked the citizens of their country to vote on ballot measures every day, but 95% of those measures were spam - everyone would grow complacent and either not vote, or just let someone vote for them.

The biggest danger to the NNS is people losing interest - you may be an exception, but the complacency with spam as the “new normal” is leading many of us to stop voting manually.

I commend @bjoernek and DFINITY for taking action to solve this issue, even if it is against their own short-term financial interests.

1 Like

Thing is they dont have to, they could follow a named neuron for spam proposals and only vote when legit ones are submitted or if they don’t want to follow anyone, not voting is also an option if those 10 minutes are too much and they’d rather spend their time doing something else.

If the IC will become a major player in the Crypto space, it’s very much possible we’ll get lots of legit proposals everyday and they won’t be nonsense that only require a couple clicks, we’ll have to either spend time informing ourselves and make a decision or delegate our vote to someone else, in practical terms not much would change from the current scenario so I see it as a non issue. The NNS already provide all the tools to let us decide.

I should be pissed cause I have to login daily and merge maturity manually on all my neurons, that is a waste of time, clicking a couple buttons to get a +5/10% APY boost not so much.

or just let someone vote for them

Yeah that’s literally how most countries work, pretending every single citizen to be informed and vote on all laws is nuts, the power of the NNS is we have the choice to vote ourselves if some topics are of our interest and we can immediately remove support to a party if they betray our trust.

2 Likes

I completely agree that people will and should delegate their vote - that is the beauty of the design of the NNS. There are detailed long term proposals that have been brought forth by the community for providing an easier UX for NNS voters in terms of making sure the proposals reach a certain threshold of support before they community is mandated to vote on them in order to receive rewards. I detailed such a proposal [Proposal] Introduce an incubation period and minimum support threshold for governance proposals, and responded to this exact concern from @cryptoschindler about hundreds of proposals coming in a day here

This being said, what you bring up with the NNS being flooded with legitimate proposals (that aren’t financially motivated) is a separate voter UX problem.

There should not be a financial incentive for spamming the NNS - period.

(Or at least it should be very, very difficult to do so)



I agree with this sentiment. Auto-merging would be a big NNS UX improvement, but that’s for another discussion.

That being said, you forgetting to merge your maturity isn’t as big of a deal as missing a potentially critical vote on the IC.

Yes I would expect that the foundation will vote also on this motion proposal. Since this update the foundation usually votes on motion proposals.

2 Likes

We need something like TRIAS token.
Trustworthy Reliable Intelligent Autonomous System.
I think the only way to achieve that is only by DAOs.
Temporary solutions are not reliable.
I have mentioned some time ago, how a proposal can be approved before submitted for a public vote but I see that nobody is interested.

The whole thing is doomed to fail.

1 Like

FWIW here I’m working on a tool that speeds up voting anyway, it’s a few weeks from release but I’m already using it myself and the spam voting is trivially quick now.

5 Likes

I also thought of the same idea, all proposals before voting on NNS need to be discussed and voted on forum a proposal can be approved before submitted for a public vote.

1 Like

where is the Decentralization in that?

Because of the follower system there is absolutely no benefit other then stealing from people who forget to follow. People are not active because the followed some one. This should be reverted

Not true, I follow and active and not stealing as it is my right to follow

The only benefits of weighting the votes to governance is the ability to steal from people who unfortunately follow dfinity’s neuron.

The only reason we did is to improve active participation… well it’s not very active as everyone follows. Seems to me like we have a vanity metric to fill.

I enjoy how this topic quickly gets to the heart of the matter. It clearly shows the competing interests at work.

I will be voting in favour of the proposal because I see an overall benefit to the (future) decentralisation of the network.

I agree. Also why has it been over 1 year now and we don’t have a basic html form to submit proposals from community members? You want less spam?

Enabled the community to easily submit their proposals …. Not rocket science

Disagree. The spam proposals can be easily distinguished and it should be part of governance

2 Likes

It’s not active because there isn’t an easy way to submit proposals hence the one guy who has figured out how to do it is being vilified

No one would bother to send in these so called “spam” proposals if there was a way for people to post proposals … it disheartening and very disturbing to see that people here don’t realize what the real issue is

Would you mind elaborating?

Fixing the spam proposal issue is quite simple:

  1. Implement this proposal: Internet Computer Network Status

  2. Require all governance proposals to go through a blind vote step: stakers have to vote whether they consider that proposal as spam or not, what others voted isn’t shown and only those who vote as the majority get the rewards once the voting period ends (weight should be low but a bit higher than other topics), if the proposal isn’t considered spam it’s promoted as a governance proposals and voting proceeds as usual.

The “tactical fix” Dfinity proposed is just a way to hide the dust under the rug, active voters lose maturity in favour of VCs who haven’t logged in the NNS for 7+ months and the true issue still persists, we might not receive increased maturity but bad actors will still be able to publish illegal/questionable content to the NNS.
Temp fixes like this should be avoided at all costs, they only further delay true solutions by giving a false impression the underlying issue has been fixed.

4 Likes