You don’t want to fix the NNS

Governance
1

I feel the structure in place for the NNS and the ability for stake holders to Decentralize the WWW is a great opportunity for us to fix the issues we face today. But it seems the comments within the NNS are more about how to punish others, reward themselves while adding more layers to the NNS and making it more difficult.

Sorry for my bluntness but I feel we have an opportunity to fix it now in the early stages. After studying this page Staking, voting and rewards - Internet Computer Wiki my understanding is outlined below.

Decentralization is described as planning and decision making that is distributed or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group.

Staked voting Power = 1 vote for every staked ICP plus Dissolved Delay, Length Delay and possible maturity rewards.

Without getting into the logic, it means that there is NO Decentralization!

In my opinion you will have the same problem as we face today with individuals manipulating the IC for personal gain.

Major investors already gain rewards through the purchase of each ICP and then reap further rewards for voting but should not be rewarded for personal gains by having more voting power.

I am not saying that an individual would purposely propose manipulation but we have seen major players with billions do and say things that the majority do not agree with and we end up with an uneven playing field.

I would suggest a system of 1 vote per owner no matter how many stakes.

There are no bad organizations, just many different opinions within.

Simple Example:
Proposal: Financial disincentive for Neuron Owner for a non-vote or following.

Neuron Owner 1. = 1 ICP = 1 Vote
Neuron Owner 2. = 2 ICP = 2 Votes

Owner 1 voted NO
Owner 2 voted Yes

Proposal Passes

The theme that I see through reading proposals and forum conversations is that most of us don’t have the expertise or understanding to vote on all proposals but are often criticized for following because of our lack of understanding, to take rewards from followers and give those rewards to those who have a better understanding which shows their lack of understanding or maybe manipulating for more rewards for themselves.

As a prospective staker I have spent many hours getting to understand the processes of the IC and have struggle at times and feel that to be a new staker I will be face with many unsuspected proposals that I will rely on Default Neuron 27 to vote for me, get to know other stakers that I feel I would like to follow and make personal votes on issues that I do or think I understand for the maximum rewards I can receive.

I would like to think that 1 vote per person on any and all stakes they own, a financial disincentive for those who would manipulate staking for personal benefit by removing voting rights and I feel a democratic voting style would have a Decentralization outcome where bad proposals would not be voted for and therefore no need to build extra layers onto the NNS but let it do the job it was designed.

2

communism is dead, let it be. 1 vote per person achieves nothing in the world of blockchains. how are you still pushing this after “months of research”? blockchains 101: anyone can create as many “accounts” as they want, and pose as anyone; and thats by design. stop trying to fix a tesla by adding blinker fluid, please.

3

Dominic Williams has created an ideal that sees the problems of the web and seeks to make it better. One of those concepts was to entrust the majority to overcome those individuals that want to take over the world.

Decentralization is one of those ideas but all I see from the comments I read are those who I call BTM Boris, Trump and Musk who turn up to ruin those who support this idea with little comprehension, sentences that make no sense and an intention to quell or support good ideas.

4

Ok. 1 vote per person. Sounds good. What if someone splits their ICP across 100 wallets? How do we catch that?

5

Was the people’s party project supposed to identify 1 real human behind those wallets while staying anonymous. Also to eliminate bots (or reduce them drastically)?

6

[a financial disincentive for those who would manipulate staking for personal benefit by removing voting rights] was already considered as a problem but nothing is perfect and setting up many wallets is a deterrent.

I feel my solution is a improvement for Decentralization and a hinder for those who like to manipulate is the goal of the project.

7

There are realms of governance where one person with one vote is a moral highground to die on. A financially based super world computer that’s very existence depends on people making decisions based on how much financial capital they have at stake is not one of those realms. If the NNS starts governing a nation-state or reasonably well-apportioned municipality we can have that conversation and we’ll be glad to have the problem.

1 Like
8

I got goosebumps reading this… sounds like a science fiction novel… but it’s real!

9

I don’t think we are talking about moral high grounds or dying, we just vote yes or no to a proposal or follow someone who will make that decision for us. Just because someone has more investment into the NNS is not a reason to have more voting power.

In blockchain, decentralization refers to the transfer of control and decision-making from a centralized entity (individual, organization, or group thereof)

The NNS is governed by ALL stakeholders and the outcome of that decision is transferred to the NNS as a rule. There is no supercomputer, just a system that does as it is told by the majority of voters and when we have only one vote per person then we have Decentralization.

10

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the NNS works and what makes it possible. The point is to dissuade people voting against the long term financial interest of the platform by having to lock capital up for an extended period that is exposed to negative effects of bad decisions. If you transfer that right to personhood and guarantee it you lose the effect and people can vote for their own personal interests with no recourse.

If I elect for the NNS to buy me a pony and have nothing at stake then the system will be out of business by next Thursday due to pony buying.

1 Like
11

I totally agree with your analogy except for my fundamental misunderstanding.

What I disapprove of is the persistent rhetoric that wants to punish other stakeholders by giving less rewards to others. That’s not the purpose of the NNS.

That is saying that’s my pony and you don’t deserve one, this is not a conversation that should be put forward.

I want a good conversation about the proposal that has been put forward and a group solution to the changes needed, if any, to protect our investments and an understanding why others have difficulty voting from a lack of understanding from both sides and be able to safety ask questions without torment and threats of penalties.

I feel you may have misunderstood my message and should read the proposal I put forward and not go off topic but a conversation about that.

12

I’ll re read. I think the solution is to drop the governance proposal back down to a factor of 1 so there is no advantage to the spam proposals. We can find other incentives to get us from 40% participation to closer to 100%. See Proposal to incentivize the diversification of followees in the NNS - #3 by skilesare

1 Like