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?
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?
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.
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 doesnât help decentralization. Maybe you have a good idea for one proposal (ICP Jesseâs electricity consumption proposal), but you donât want to vote on every governance proposal manually. In this case you should be able to submit the proposal without having a named neuron.
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
Agreed I overlooked this entirely. I also made this same (embarrassing) mistake when overlooking that spam doesnât increase inflation. So, I apologize to the community for that mistake that did mislead my vote. I like the idea of prefixing it in all caps haha Sometimes, Iâll be surfing through the forum for so long that it can be very easy to overlook things towards the end of the session lol Little things like that would def. be a good fix to THAT problem haha we can solve that at the least haha
