Vote Stagnancy Solutions

Governance
#42

May I just confirm if I understand the new UI correctly? In example:

We have 2 preps - prep1, gaining 20k ICX as a monthly reward and prep2 gaining 10k ICX as a monthly reward

prep1 sponsors 20 small projects for 500 ICX each (totally spending 2 weeks worth of their rewards in the process)

prep2 sponsors one large project for 40k ICX (spending 4 months of their rewards worth in the process)

If I understand correctly the new UI will show as sponsored projects prep1 with 20 and prep2 with 1, thus giving much higher recognition for prep1? Is that not quite easy to abuse?

In regards to the Governance section, if a team votes on 9/10 proposals, what will the section show - yes or no?

#43

@Emre sponsored projects is on chain data from the CPS. Read more about it on the CPS thread. It’s not related to the projects section of icon.community.

@nblaze

Let’s see how it plays out, but I think you underestimate how difficult it will be to pass meaningless projects that are just meant to boost your sponsored projects numbers. Each sponsored project must be approved by 67% of p-Reps. If somebody passes 20 small projects through this system, that means they researched and supported 20 quality projects that 67% of the governing teams approved of.
I don’t see this as a problem, but if it becomes clear that it’s being abused we can easily remove that from the UI. Also just a reminder that sponsors are not spending money, they put the ICX up as collateral and earn 20% return per month for doing so.

The governance column is whether or not you are registered to manage the CPS. Not sure if you looked at the CPS thread, but managing is now an opt-in format. If you miss a vote, you get de-registered and it would then say “no” in that column. To register again after missing a vote, you need to burn some ICX as a penalty.

#44

Something which can’t be manipulated and transparent I am backing that with full support even though I don’t think we will have much action as a sub with this part. I believe that’s a great indicator for people to look at.

1 Like
#45

After seeing the vote stagnancy problem being tackled through a design mechanism I think this can bring meaningful impact for new voters thus limiting the vote accumulation in the upper part of the p reps ranking.
I am not sure of the impact it will have on votes that are already casted thus here is an idea I hope can help tackle those problems:

I know the focus is on vote stagnancy but the problems are both vote stagnancy and vote spreading:

So what I think can help is iconsensus
I think there should be another iconsensus initiative to help fight vote spreading and vote stagnancy.
Of course for it to be meaningful there should be incentives and it should not be detrimental to voters embracing the vote once and forget mentality.

So here would be the process clearly:

  1. Some noise will be made with p reps going in campaign mode on the basis of their contribution to the ecosystem.
  2. A period of time will be set to vote for many contributing p reps.
  3. A set of rules will be made such shift your vote around and vote for more then 10 p reps.
  4. Voters who play the game well will receive icx from a pool that will be set in advance (maybe the cps so redirecting more inflation to the cps will be a great idea)

So basically come and vote for the most contributing p reps and as many as possible and you receive more icx and if not you miss on an opportunity.
This is more of a community effort as the perfect technological solution has not taken shape yet.

#46

Check this out @Primo this is a recently supported grant by ICON and is similar to what you are suggesting

1 Like
#47

Thanks for the explanation, maybe Im looking at it wrong, I dont know… In my opinion as the projects are not submitted by preps only, if in example I was a prep, planning a large marketing campaign, I would just split it into its integral components (in example twitter campaign, facebook campaign, influencer marketing, article submittion etc) and even submit each of those via a separate new nickname. This would give me a lot of projects that I would just sponsor myself (if I understood correctly the project leader picks who will sponsor their project out of the teams that have agreed to do so) and boost my stats this way. A single stat seems quite easy to game and it shifts the focus on the smaller projects in the system. I believe that we should should have a second one listing the total monthly lockup (summed value for every ‘per month’ lockup needed for every separate project)

The same thing with the governance column - in my opinion there should be more than a single yes/no indicator as that would oversimplify the contribution of the more active teams. I believe that the current yes/no column should stay as it is definitely useful but we should also have the amount of votes that that prep has participated/failed to participate in as a separate one, as in example when you compare preps and they have respectively 9/10, 1/2, 23/23 and 1/1 governance participations, that would give a lot more information to the Iconists, compared to only having their current status

#48

We like the idea of improving UI/UX on both ICONex and ICON Tracker. In addition to the new columns being proposed by @BennyOptions_LL , how about one for “latest progress report” that can be linked to a site that summarizes a P-Rep’s most recent contributions (e.g., Medium, P-Rep’s own website, a designated website for all teams to use, etc.)?

This report would be updated by individual P-Reps themselves, but we can agree to a standard template that everyone adheres to (similar to how grant applications are submitted). It can be, for instance, a quarterly report that teams would be responsible for keeping updated on a regular basis…

Yes, although it would be possible for teams to embellish/exaggerate their own contributions, at current, there seems to be more than enough entirely inactive nodes (where it actually seems probable that some teams wouldn’t even bother to provide a link and/or update at all)… For voters, clicking a broken link or opening a blank page should be an obvious “red flag”…

Also in a way, this is what the iconpreps website was supposed to be all about, so if there’s a way to re-introduce or integrate this original neat idea, it might be something worth looking into. And furthermore, it might be useful if there’s a way for other P-Reps/ICONists to weigh in (this ties into what @TranscranialSol has proposed with ICON Reviews)…

2 Likes
#49

I’ll point out that my project “iconalyst.com” was also built to try and inform iconists about prep activities, including governance and voting participation but the engagement, from anyone, has been near zero.

This could for many reasons from a lack of awareness, to a lack of care, but the fact is very few people seem to care enough to find or use resources that are out there to learn more about preps.

Admittedly there could be more relevant information there too, but that would require some level of participation from preps and additional enhancements that are hard to justify currently.

#50

@Brandon_FBM
I like to share my point for that. First of all nothing against your platform we nearly take 3-month silence on twitter. We are a group of devs and with our rewards, there is no way we can hire someone considering the lowest hour pay is 12-13 USD and we are getting around monthly 600 right now. Secondly, there is the main website for this kind of stuff which is icon.community prep section. That tool has projects side which is flooded and some joke projects so I don’t see any value even spending time to create data there. Lastly, there is a problem of a lot of prep coming up with their own platform and expect all preps and iconist jump onboard. In iconanalyst case there is several platforms like that if I recall correctly. Lets say there was 4 platform like that at peak while there is only 10-50 iconist actually looking for that kind of information. Biggest issue is most of the time it comes up as because of how it is it’s hard to get data about preps etc. we should have better platform system while literally no one cares about that.

1 Like