Thanks for the response @lara !
Would this mean that only the stake matters and things like dissolve delay etc are irrelevant? I.e., no matter if someone staked for a short or long time they would just get the share of the treasury that they contributed?
Yes, only the amount of tokens matter, dissolve delay would be are irrelevant for this feature. Otherwise, I think it gets too complicated for not much gain.
Would this also be true if e.g., the treasury grew in the meantime?
Treasury changes will get reflected on the exchange rate between ICX neurons and ICP. That includes both treasuries.
And just to make sure: this could be done on a per-neuron basis, right? So each neuron could individually decide to leave the DAO?
Yes, per-neuron basis.
Here I think we have to think about the tradeoff
This is my analysis of each item:
- I think implementing the SNS neuron transfer in the NNS dapp should be okay, since it’s a minimal change and saves users from transferring the II instead. In this latter case, they are transferring all the neurons at the same time to idGeek (or other dapps popping up), and it feels too risky when you could simply transfer the neuron that you want and save fees.
- Being able to burn neurons by sending them to some address, like we do with tokens, doesn’t seem too complex to implement or too much of a change. Also, it’s safe since you are just burning them.
- Note: I don’t think these features are too niche, as I don’t see any other way to protect users. DAO founders might not be interested in having these kinds of checks for obvious reasons, but I think that’s not a valid reason to not implement these primitives.