Way forward on spam - Proposal for tactical fix

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

There is literally a wiki article on how to do it. what are you talking about? Just because you don’t know how to use the command line doesn’t mean other people don’t.

No one is villifying anyone we are just over it, he made his point and now he’s just wasting everyone’s time. Take the weighted response down there is no benefit to it.

I am curious about what 260+ are doing everyday? Back to the original one just like a joke? Even do not have time to figure out a better solution if possible? If this is approved, the possible solution may be postponed for a long time? If so why not just think about a better solution and implemented it?

1 Like

It is kind of funny to take money away from VCs by clicking a few buttons though.

This proposal is actually bad for the price. I’ve been watching the numbers and a lot of the daily reward is just locked back up into 8 year neurons.

3 Likes

I mean sure, I guess there’s competing interests. The reality of the matter is you have 3 distinct groups competing for resources.
VC’s, Dev’s, and public investors.

The problem at the heart of this is;
Public investors are deep underwater. There is not a single public investor that is up on their position. Not one.

So the spam proposals offer a minor ROI for your public investors who’ve been thoroughly nut slapped through the god awful price action of ICP.

Naturally, you’ll start seeing more casual voices intruding on your forum now, myself included. I dont care about programming. I dont care about developing. Thats not my toolset/skillset in life. I’m here for the future promise of the tech.

That being said, I’m looking at the dev side of this, and watching you guys try to coddle the VC’s bags because its somehow unfair for them to miss out on spam gov proposal rewards as they arent active/dont care.

Fix your priorities.

6 Likes

Thoroughly nut-slapped by the exact group of people this proposal benefits… the seed investors that market sell their dissolved ICP every month.

1 Like

It’s not bad for the price at all. You must not be out in the trenches where people are laughing at all the spam proposals. You think whale investors are going to buy into a protocol that can be gamed by a 15 year old troll?