Just to make sure…
You are aware that the proposal here was abandoned right? And that is what @bjoernek is saying. if that was not clear, then that is feedback worth noting so we can update communications on.
Just to make sure…
You are aware that the proposal here was abandoned right? And that is what @bjoernek is saying. if that was not clear, then that is feedback worth noting so we can update communications on.
@ bjoernek
I disagree with this statement. Voting rewards should not be written as XDR in this chart. This is because voting rewards are roughly proportional to the total staked amount. Voting rewards are issued in ICP, not XDR. If the overall value (market cap) of ICP doubles, the 15x on the chart becomes 30x. Therefore, voting rewards should be expressed as a percentage. On the other hand, Node rewards are paid in XDR and a fixed cost, if no nodes are added and ignore change of OPEX. So XDR notation is correct for node rewards and cycles burned.
Some people suggest increasing the computational(cycle) cost. I think the burning cycles should be equal to the reward for node providers, in the future when IC is mass adopted. At that moment, total cost has to be equal with total reward. 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.
If the reward and cost are of similar size, only voting rewards determine inflation. As I’ve written before (link, please read it), inflation is fine as long as it doesn’t fluctuate dramatically. And inflation actually helps and attracts newbies.
If there are no critical reasons such as death spiral, I will vote against the proposal changing tokenomics. I think there is no critical reason to change here.
Tokenomics must be stable.
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 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.
I agree!
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.
You’re right. I made a mistake; it depends on total supply.
here, I meant that I will vote against changing tokenomics generally, if there are no critical reasons. I created a misunderstanding.
I’m not too technologically savvy, and don’t know the ins and outs of development/tokenomics/burning/menting… but I never was going to dissolve my neuron. I considered my principal investment gone. My plan is to live life off voting rewards. Please don’t forget about us in this decision. Hopefully we have something to vote on with multiple options if any changes are to take place. I’m still adding to my 8YearNeuron, funds that I don’t want back.
Kind regards -HG
Dear @IC_Maximillion, apologies for late reply but it has been a very intense period around the Anniversary event at HQ.
Concerning this kind of ADV that you suggest, the best use of that in crypto would be around conferences, where the correct audience is in place. It might be considered in the future. Thanks for pointing it out !
Hi Emilio. Yeah i can imagine there was a lot to do in the last couple of days.
True that, otherwise people would just walk by and have no idea what they just were looking at. Very true. Greetings
If the overall value (market cap) of ICP doubles, the 15x on the chart becomes 30x.
@Murphy
I don’t quite understand this part.
If ICP price double,
It should still be 30x instead of 15x.
In this chart the unit is XDR. Although XDR is an appropriate unit to display node rewards, it is inappropriate to display voting rewards. This is because voting rewards are paid in ICP, and their number is proportional to the total ICP supply. Here, the number of ICP paid to stakers is independent of the price of ICP. If the price of ICP doubles, the node rewards will not change from 1.9M XDR, but the voting rewards become 2 * 28.3 M XDR; because the chart uses XDR unit. Therefore 15x will become 30x.
But, well… you said:
In the current chart it is 15x not 30x. I meant it will be 30x in the chart, if the price doubles when the total supply of ICP is the same.
Ok, then I have no problem with that.