Analysis of Proposals on Neuron Dissolve Delays and Exchange Maturity

[bjoernek]

@Murphy

I disagree with this statement. Voting rewards should not be written as XDR in this chart.

For the purpose of this analysis I chose to convert all rewards to the same unit (XDR), using the current ICP/XDR exchange rate, so that one can compare the materiality of node rewards and voting rewards side-by-side. And yes, it is possible to conduct more fine-grained analysis and simulation, see for example the projections which I had shared previously in the forum.

This is because voting rewards are roughly proportional to the total staked amount.

This statement does not seem to be correct. The size of the daily voting reward pot is determined as total supply * voting reward function / 365.25. Hence it is independent of the total staked amount.

But now, computational costs should not be increased to suppress inflation. Rather, we need to accelerate the mass adoption of IC.

The IC Network has reached the minimum target number of nodes for decentralization. This means that the network’s reward growth will not accelerate unless cycle burning increases further. From January 2022 to now, the number of cycles burned has increased by 11.6 times. It makes me optimistic about the future of the network and the balance of costs and rewards.

I agree!

I will vote against the proposal changing tokenomics. I think there is no critical reason to change here.

This is also my conclusion, please see the TL;DR above. Based on the analysis in this forum thread, it is suggested to NOT pursue the proposals on neuron dissolve delays and exchange maturity at this moment in time.