DFINITY Foundation

ICP Maximalist Network

ICDevs.org

Internet Computer Association

cycledao.xyz


## Proposal co-sponsors: 
[@justmythoughts](https://forum.dfinity.org/u/justmythoughts), [@wpb](https://forum.dfinity.org/u/wpb), [@Zane](https://forum.dfinity.org/u/zane)

## Proposal
We propose that DFINITY implement proposals [55651 - Periodic Confirmation of Neuron Followees 9](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/55651) and [38985 - Enable Manual Voting throughout the Entire Voting Period 10](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/38985) before fully implementing proposal [48623 - Compounding Maturity Proposal 10](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/48623).

## Prioritizing Decentralization of the IC over Tax Optimization
A very important driver for wanting to prioritize proposals 55651 and 38985 over 48623 is that they will have a bigger impact on the decentralization of the IC. Proposal 55651 seeks to ensure that voting rewards are distributed to neurons whose owners meet a minimum standard of active participation, which is simply to confirm their Followee selections every 6 months, instead of neurons that were configured by default to follow DFINITY at genesis. Proposal 38985 seeks to allow all neurons owners to vote manually at any time during the Voting Period even if their Followee(s) has already voted. Both of these proposals are directly aligned with the ethos of active and decentralized NNS governance and the purpose of the tokenomics incentives. Proposal 48623 seeks to help neuron owners avoid incurring a tax burden. In the process of addressing this issue, the changes will also add a lot of new voting power to the NNS from ICP that is currently sitting in large genesis neurons as maturity and it will influence ICP price with the modulation function. These are not the primary objectives of NNS governance and tokenomics incentives. Hence, prioritization of proposals 55651 and 38985 over proposal 48623 seems to be more closely aligned with governance objectives at this time.

## Background
Over the past year, the NNS voting community has passed many proposals related to the NNS, including:

**Dashboard NNS Proposal Links** - (Note the % are out of those who voted, not total staked voting power)
- [38985] [Enable Manual Voting throughout the Entire Voting Period 10](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/38985) (Passed 2022-01-11 with 91% approval)
- [55651] [Periodic Confirmation of Neuron Followees 9](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/55651) (Passed 2022-04-24 with 90% approval)
- [48491] [Motion Proposal for NNS Neuron ID Indexing 1](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/48491) (Passed 2022-03-12 with 74% approval)
- [48623] [Compounding Maturity Proposal 10](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/48623) (Passed 2022-03-14 with 51% approval)

Even though Compounding Maturity Proposal was, and still is one of the most controversial and close governance proposal votes to pass the NNS (51% approval vs. 49% reject), the DFINITY foundation has chosen to [prioritize and deliver this proposal first 2](https://forum.dfinity.org/t/compounding-maturity-nns-implementation-update/14387).

Adding on, the [@jwiegley](https://forum.dfinity.org/u/jwiegley), the original DFINITY engineer who was put in charge of the [original Compounding Maturity Proposal 1](https://forum.dfinity.org/t/request-for-feedback-compounding-maturity-proposal/11011), has since left DFINITY and publicly come out against the implementation of this proposal on the developer forums.

[Compounding Maturity - NNS implementation update](https://forum.dfinity.org/t/compounding-maturity-nns-implementation-update/14387/30)
> Although I started the original discussion on this feature, I want to go on record that I think it is a very bad idea. I predict it will not benefit price, not help anyone with their taxes, and it will further complicate an already very complicated system – in ways that may introduce unknown complications that will themselves have to be mitigated later, as happened with changing voting weights. Clever ideas on top of complex systems often seem like a good idea before they are put into practice. …

## Why should I pass this as a voter, isn’t this micromanagement?
First off, no organization, team, or employee works well being micro-managed, and most NNS voters believe in the vision and capability of DFINITY to deliver on their roadmap, as they have proven the ability to do so (good job DFINITY!).

However, when a proposal driven and passed by the voters passes the NNS, there is some expectation that this proposal is eventually worked on, but there is currently no mechanism or guarantee that DFINITY will actually implement that proposal.

What voters see right now is that the Compounding Maturity proposal, which was the top priority of the head of DFINITY, is being prioritized in front of other proposals that passed earlier and with much higher approval. In fact, those other proposals have not even been given places on the roadmap.

In fact, 7 out of all 8 of [@dominicwilliams](https://forum.dfinity.org/u/dominicwilliams) replies on these forums until now have been with respect to the Compounding Maturity Proposal [Profile - dominicwilliams - Internet Computer Developer Forum](https://forum.dfinity.org/u/dominicwilliams/activity)

[Request for feedback: Compounding Maturity Proposal](https://forum.dfinity.org/t/request-for-feedback-compounding-maturity-proposal/11011/110)
> Hey everyone, this thread contains many good points and questions, and I hope to cover them. Discussions will roll on for a while. Big thanks to everyone who has taken the time to give their views so far. I want to start by addressing the tax considerations, and whether it is appropriate for the design of neuron staking to be sympathetic to them. The case of a Seed investor who thought they faced major losses There was an engineer in California, who persuaded his mum to participate in the 201…

If the implementation of proposals passed by the NNS is truly just dependent on “top down C-suite level management”, and decision making that puts their own priorities first over those of the voters, it actually shows that the NNS is not decentralized. In fact, **all this shows that we are all operating under the facade of a decentralized vote**.

This has even larger implications in the value of your ICP as a governance token - is it just worth the compute cycles from burning, or does your voting power actually matter? Can your vote actually drive DFINITY to implement and deliver any proposal, especially one that passed the NNS 6 months ago by a wide approval margin?

## What we’re asking the governing body
This will not be something that we in the community expect the voters to do often. We don’t want to push DFINITY to context switch on a whim, or to micro-manage them as stated before → that would kill innovation and their vision.

In this case, we’re asking voters in the community to push back on the internal prioritization of a highly controversial proposal, criticized by its original implementer, that barely passed the NNS, and has been dictated and driven by a single person from the very start.

We’re asking voters to publicly say that they want DFINITY to take proposals that the IC governing body has passed convincingly, and to prioritize that work in the DFINITY roadmap.

We’re asking voters to publicly push DFINITY to take the following into account when they prioritize proposals:
- The chronological order in which they were passed
- The approval percentage associated with the NNS vote
- The backwards-compatibility of the change, and the friction/pushback that it would cause within the community.

## Proposal Deliberation
More information and comments during the deliberation on this proposal can be found [here](https://forum.dfinity.org/t/proposal-to-prioritize-55651-periodic-confirmation-38985-manual-voting-over-48623-compounding-maturity/14461).



Proposal to Prioritize 55651 (Periodic Confirmation) & 38985 (Manual Voting) over 48623 (Compounding Maturity)