If we added Governance back to All Topics, then DFINITY would not be able to vote on any Governance proposal because it would execute liquid democracy of all voting power in the NNS. It would look and feel very centralized and would move us in the direction of being more at risk of ICP being in identified as security since we would all be profiting from the efforts of others (e.g. DFINITY) instead of by having to perform the work of governance ourselves. It’s much more messy if that change is rolled back in my opinion.
2 Likes
True, it would mean more or less returning to the situation a year ago. But it would also create a sense of urgency to fix the central issue. Without that urgency, temporary rollbacks have a way of becoming semi-permanent… Anyway, the proposal as outlined by Dfinity will pass, all discussion now is academic.
2 Likes
Yep that’s exactly one of my main concerns. Dfinity should put the SNS on the backburner and focus on fixing the NNS instead. As Psychedelic team said “focus on the protocol, not the applications”
Ysyms is also profiting at a level that is unfair to everyone in the ecosystem, he is doing essentially 0 work and made $8-9k up front this month by charging ridiculous fees. Supracompetitive pricing is inherently unethical and we should be voting yes to end this abuse of power on this point alone.
Agreed but there are ways to fix that, I’m working on a dApp to trustlessly crowdfund proposals. Only fee will be the one to keep the canister running.
5 Likes
That sounds awesome! But I’d like to end this here and now, I don’t want him making 1,240 ICP per month any longer. Even if you launched it today, there might be 2-3 more months of spam from Ysyms before the people donating to him realize there is a 99.9% more efficient way.
Never going to happen, why would a person spam NNS and lose money to do that?
Lets vote to confiscated his neuron and split it amongst us.
Confiscate the ICP, sell it on Coinbase and we can spend it all on beer and get drunk!
2 Likes
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.
13 Likes
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).
4 Likes
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.
4 Likes
A couple comments on this statement:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Regards
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.
3 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
3 Likes