[PROPOSAL ##][DRAFT] Spam Prevention Fairness Amendment

SPAM PREVENTION AND FAIRNESS PROPOSAL CHANGELOG 09/12/2022 AUTHORS AND CREDIT -₿INØCHET STATUS DRAFT CONTEXT Concerns were raised for spam proposals in the Hub. This proposal suggests parameters change but in a more fair way towards the community and on the same time maintaining a firm anti-spam policy while also honouring previous proposals regarding the amount topic( #6 , #47 , #87 ) Proposal #87 was raised to tackle a Spam issue; however, it came without data to support that claim. It is also more logical to increase the initial deposit as ~1 Atom proposal deposit is susceptible to spam itself due to the amount being miniscule. OVERVIEW • Change the proposer account deposit to 10 ATOMs • Change of the initial minimum deposit(min_deposit) param in the governance module before the deposit end time to a total of 50 ATOMs • The 10 ATOMs for the proposal account deposit cannot be contributed to, and submitted by multiple different accounts, but only via a single wallet, and that is the proposer account. REASONING The concerns of SPAM proposals in ATOM are nothing new. Initially prop #6 was introduced and passed to further improve the CosmosHub…

Excerpt (1198 of 4115 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I found this proposal draft for how it is written more political, than an action in the best interest of the network. Because this proposal firmly ignore the decision of the community, in fact we just had a proposal to change the deposit amount. Proposal 87# reached a wide majority with at the time of writing 93% YES and 51% Turnout. Those are strong numbers that signal already the will of the community in term of minimum deposit for governance. Having a new proposal for changing a minimum deposit after we just had one with strong community consensus, could be classified as spam. Spam because it is meant to overwrite a proposal that is likely going to pass with a strong community consensus and participation in a metter of days from approval. A new proposal for a minimum deposit would be legitimate in the case Prop 87# will be rejected. But so far this is not the case. Binochet: Proposal #47 was raised, and passed to decrease the amount from 512 ATOMs to 64, in an attempt to be more inclusive to the community. Proposal 47 was raised the 2021-05-06 the price of Atom during that period was 24$, this means that the community considered fair having a…

Excerpt (1192 of 3059 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This prop is poorly timed. It seems to fly in the face of a vote which is currently passing with 93% voting yes. I am going to assume it is well intentioned but I would recommend seeing the impact from 97 before putting this on chain as it might prove to be unintentionally diversive just as we are reaching reasonable unity.

seems to beg the question: why did so many people vote to raise the minimum deposit for proposals during a bear market, making it considerably more difficult to put up proposals when trend reverses? did validators vote without considering the future consequences of 4x’ing the proposal cost or is it centralization/bandwagon voting?

Spam is not what YOU define, Robb. There is actual definition of this word and you can go look it up, otherwise i can spin whatever adjective to my narrative. YOU are making this political instead of discussing the context of the proposal here.

Who is to say a proposal cannot arise to nullify a previous prop that someone identified a problem with? Isnt prop #75 raised to nullify #6 in a way with the “NwV” shame campaign? ← This is not something to be discussed here and now. This is to prove that the politics do not come from me, im trying to amend this actually.

Discuss the prop Context, please. Timing is not an issue, i decided not to push on chain, i will explain below as to why

After careful consideration it was decided not to be pushed on chain. Sadly the community voted yes, in absence of better judgment if i may add, to a proposal they dont fully understand. Prop 87 was unjust and unjustified. No Data was presented to show the “Spam” issue for one and for another, you need only look into Cosmos Hub documentation of Proposal Best Practices to see that as well. • Does it make sense? - No prop 87 does not as its presenting a non issue, or atleast a non factual data supported issue • Are there critical flaws? - Yes because the increase of ATOMs is hindering the community’s ability to propose ideas on chain • Does it needs to be reconsidered? - Yes for the above stated factual reasons Additionally, It was estimate that we were too limited with our possibilities within the timeframe presented, to do justice the right way of proposing an alternate fair and more sound of a “counter” proposal that serves both: Justice to community and the “Spam” issue. Because of that, and because everything seems it revolves around politics, and Cosmos is no exception to that, this prop would not get the justice it deserves, because i really do stand behind this…

Excerpt (1198 of 3428 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Proposal 87 is officially passed with: 83.8% YES - 20903 individuals - 90 Validators 6.22% NO - 781 individuals - 15 Validators 0,01% No with Veto 9.92% Abstain The community already made a decision, if you are a community members that would actually care to Cosmos, you would respect a decision of the decentralized governance. But unfortunately your group ‘‘Cosmos Maximalist’’ doesn’t care to the community or either to Cosmos and his current shape. Your reply is the proof once again that your group cares only to what your group want for Cosmos. You group keep trying as can be seen in the speech above to pretend to represent the whole community or the small stakeholders, but indeed your group represents a minority that is not open to accept any governance decisions that is not in line with their vision. This is the definition of extremism, it’s a tendency to support a political position without accepting any compromise and rejecting the decisions of the majority, and unfortunately also fight any decisions. As we can see with this draft proposal that wanna fight a decision where the YES were above 2/3 of the voters. The irony is that you are pushing for an higher…

Excerpt (1197 of 2754 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Here we go. You do not know for a fact with whom i am working you only assume, which is a moot point to bring to the table. You are making it political once again but such is your modus operandi. You cannot say that the community would not embrace this option presented here because it wasnt concidered or presented in 87. This is entirely different solution for the same problem. So tell me, Robb, how can the community decide between the two solutions if one is not presented to the community via on chain voting? This renders your argument about the community weak, and you can mascarade this however you want but the fact is that this option was never on the table. So the community did not voice an opinion upon. There are two solutions to the same problem and only one is presented to stakeholders, how is this a fair analogy of what the community wants? Younare using the “community” as a shield of deflection. And once again you divert from the context of this draft to strawman it with crazy consipiracy theories about a “cosmos maximalist” club. You are wat out of reality and have no clue to who you are speaking nor does it matter, so i would urge you to put aside your ptsd and…

Excerpt (1198 of 1273 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Don’t worry I don’t wanna talk further of your group, because anyone that has been in the governance chat or followed governance proposals is aware of this. But to answer very simply why your current draft is to he considered spam (because it is not a necessary proposal) and it is ignoring the community decision for super majority: The community voted to raise the deposit amount from 64 Atom to 250 Atom. This means, that there was already low amount of Atom required to submit a proposal, and yet the community with super majority decided to raise it. Your proposal wanna mainly invert this decision and bring back a lower amount. But Proposal #87 already showed the on-chain feedback of the community on this argument. So your draft proposal it is meant to ignore a decision of governance that happened just yesterday, because your group or yourself don’t agree with the decision. But again it’s not few people that should shape the decision of the decentralized governance, we have an on-chain voting system and the community already expressed their will on the matter. For sure the deposit amount can be reviewed in the future, following market price movements, but for sure…

Excerpt (1197 of 1494 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Your suggestion that i act as a proxy for another group is insulting to my individuality and has nothing to do with the context of my draft.

I cannot further discuss with you as well. Because you either dont understand that the community voted to increase the min_deposit purely from absence of an alternative, OR you choose to ignore this FACT altogether, thus rendering the continuation of this discussion with you pointless.

I would love to hear feedback for this as an alternative from others as well.

It is extremely unsetling the fact that we cannot voice an opinion to rectify a proposal that was not presented with alternative solutions. Who are you to judge that and decide? Stop using the community as a shield. The community was not presented with an alternative. Its very simple to understand, really

The alternative was to vote NO to Proposal #87 and keep the 64 Atom amount. But the community voted to increase to 250 Atom with super majority.

Each proposal has YES and No options, there is always an alternative.

So you have already a feedback that the community prefer to have 250 Atom as deposit amount and not 64 Atom or lower.

can you really say that the community voted for prop87? seems more accurate to say validators cast community votes that way.

This is a question that can be verified on-chain looking at individuals voters.

Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation

Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks.

Proposal #87 had the participation of 22261 individual voters which is a fair representation of the Cosmos community.

i dont doubt that it can be assessed, i dont see how you concluded that 22261 individual voters is a fair representation of the cosmos community

I think it is the best representation we can have out of the people interested for it. I mean, literally everyone can vote. So if “just” 22k people take the effort, then that is the fair representation of the community, since they seem to care enough to invest the effort in voting. The rest seemingly does not care enough.

For now I would like to make sure the discussion here is solely on the content; and not on persons and related groups. In the past messages I saw some mutual frustration (with an origin in the past?). I guess that at this point in time we have to respect prop #87 regarding the outcome, but monitoring is needed. If we need to lower again, because price is rising or whether practically no proposals are coming through anymore then we need to adjust. I do agree that such decisions in general need data to back things up.

Leonoor thank you for the feedback.

So if “just” 22k people take the effort, then that is the fair representation of the community, since they seem to care enough to invest the effort in voting. The rest seemingly does not care enough.

My reasoning is that even if ALL the cosmonauts voted yes, they were only presented a solution different to the problem than what i propose. So it is not fair to say that they “chose” 250 atoms objectively while being unaware of a different solution to the same “problem”. The “No” vote is also a disingenuous point, because when you present a sense of urgency + a negative word accompanying
it, with no other solution at hand, it is logical that people will vote “yes” for absence of a better alternative.

Spam could be a problem, but its a problem not presented yet. Kevin’s proposal serves HIS personal definition of Spam, and it is not justified by data. Ergo it renders the prop unfair even if you view it from multiple angles.

The image painted here, is that a small cartel is responsible to make suggestions for the future of the Hub while Cosmonauts vote on predetermined proposals, which gives the illusion of choice, but lets not kid here.

I very much understand your concern.

I miss the option to do some kind of “lightweight” form of governance at this time. Gaging the community thoughts through governance is quite a drastic measure, some kind of well-received poll would be wonderful in this perspective to check which route we should take. Do we have something in our toolbox which might serve that purpose?

I have something in mind for some time now, ill draft and share

I disagree with the notion that the Community should always be welcome to suggest a proposal on chain. I think only select few, high quality proposals should reach the public referendum stage and those will definitely not have a problem getting 250 or more ATOM deposit. I consider proposals #78, #80 and #86 spam proposals and proposals #89 and #90 not worthy of direct public referendum

Why not modify this proposal to require 250ATOMs (or whatever was recently decided) for the total amount? I would consider maybe 50ATOMs for the submitter, and 250ATOMs total.

It seems fair for the proposal amount to be a shared burden for a community crowdfund, because not everyone has 250ATOMs to put up.

With that, it seems like an improvement that has a chance of passing, and certainly adds to this discussion.

It doesn’t matter what proposal recently passed, anyone who puts up the deposit should have their proposal seen, end of story. If this doesn’t work it’s up to the chain to solve the spam problem through code. Nothing to complain about.

The difficult part in naming things “spam” is that not everyone perceives spam the same way. What matters to one does not have to matter for someone else and vice versa.

So I am totally a fan of your statement:

It doesn’t matter what proposal recently passed, anyone who puts up the deposit should have their proposal seen, end of story.

It does matter though if it is pre-discussed on the forum or a Commonwealth where people can already discuss whether something should go on-chain. Things can be tackled that way before it goes on-chain, effectively reducing non-needed proposals.

I wanted to know if this is an appropriate forum to bring up the issues the community is having with the, “No with Veto”, option in governance. I have no issue with the proposed item, as it promotes inclusion into governance and participation into the proposal creation.
However the issues I and a segment of the community are having with how certain parties are using NWV, grows as these parties misuse the system to invalidate successful props and punish proposers by burning their deposits.
NWV was meant to dissuade spam props and bad actors, yet it is instead being used to gate-keep the ecosystem and stymie innovation.
As for prop 75, It is so widely defined that these rules can be used to justify any use of NWV, not the mention the fact that there are no onchain means of limiting how NWV is used nor any means of sanctioning it’s misuse.

This is indeed the right forum to discuss such things. I would advise though to have a separate thread for it ^^

But if there are legitimate concerns, then they are worth mentioning and discussing them.