cICP - Compounding Stream ICP - Liquid Staking Token

Very happy to present to you cICP. A liquid staking token governed by Neutrinite DAO.

cICP mint

cICP is a liquid staking token (compounding stream ICP) designed to align long-term incentives on the Internet Computer (IC). When you mint cICP, 95–98% of the ICP provided as mint_input is staked into an 8-year neuron. The voting rewards from this neuron are disbursed daily into the buyback stream, where ICP is used to purchase cICP via a vector, and the purchased cICP is burned. cICP doesn’t unlock.

This process doesn’t add new ICP to the neuron, but it increases the ICP share of all cICP holders and raises the mint_rate, calculated as:

mint_rate = mint_input / total_ledger_supply

Node Provider Vault (np_vault)

The remaining 2–5% of mint_input, called node_split, is directed to the Node Provider Vault (np_vault). This portion is slowly converted into USDT and stored in np_vault_usdt. The vault’s sole purpose is to be used in exchange for node yield, which is also sent into the buyback stream—further benefiting cICP holders.

The size of node_split is dynamically adjusted to maintain a 1:1 ratio between the cICP neuron’s voting power and the overall node provider share in the network. This helps shield cICP from both inflationary mechanisms on the IC:

  1. Neuron Rewards Inflation (~14% APR)

  2. Node Provider Inflation tied to the ICP/XDR conversion rate

These two systems operate differently, and their effects can’t be mitigated by compounding alone. The result is a deflationary mechanism for cICP, at the cost of temporary liquidity reduction.

For example, if the cICP/ICP exchange rate drops by 50% from the mint rate and no one is buying, the buyback stream would begin burning 2 cICP instead of 1—effectively increasing deflation and rewarding long-term holders.

Node Economics Breakdown

  • ICP Node Rewards: ~$1,300–$1,500/month

  • Costs:

    • Datacenter hosting: $100–$250/month

    • Operator service fee: ~$100/month (reasonable given self-maintaining IC nodes)

    • Hardware cost: ~$17,000–$20,000 per node

Given this, a node pays for itself in roughly 13 months.

However, because ICP issuance increases when its market price drops, even staked neurons can face dilution. This is where cICP plays a key role: protecting long-term holders by redirecting a portion of the mint input into hardware infrastructure.

Instead of requiring node operators to make hardware investments, reputable operators can simply provide services and receive ~$300/month in NTN tokens. Meanwhile, cICP holders provide the capital for hardware and receive the full node rewards—making cICP a deflationary liquid staking solution.


Current Stats (at time of writing):

  • Total voting power on the IC: 427,023,783

  • Voting power of cICP neuron: 232,830

  • Target: 1 node per 295,691 voting power to maintain the 1:1 ratio
    This structure effectively introduces a partial PoS-like dynamic, with a single inflationary mechanism for cICP holders.


Planned (but not yet implemented):

  • 5% of neuron rewards will be used to buy and burn NTN, supporting cycle costs and protocol maintenance.

  • A small % of rewards may also fund vector-based strategies that improve compounding efficiency and incentivize liquidity provision.


Hypothetical Historical Example

Imagine cICP existed 4 years ago:

  • ICP price: $50

  • Estimated total NNS voting power: 250 million

  • Estimated node count: 700

  • Target: 1 node per 357,142 voting power
    → Requires ~178,571 ICP or $8.93M to maintain 1:1 ratio

  • Hardware cost per node: ~$21,000
    → Only 0.2% of total liquidity would go to node infrastructure

If we compound for 4 years at a conservative 15% APY:

  • Neuron staking would yield ~133,792 ICP

  • Node rewards (reinvested) would yield ~16,388 ICP

Breakdown:

  • Node rewards = 10.91% of total staking rewards

  • Output ratio: NNS staking vs. node staking = 8.17 : 1

  • Value ratio: capital used = 425.17 : 1

To truly hedge against dilution and inflation, both staking mechanisms must be addressed. cICP does this by capturing node rewards through minimal capital allocation—making it a viable, deflationary staking model for the long term.

cICP tokenomics are on-chain using ICRC55 and governed by Neutrinite DAO

Voting system

Currently, the cICP neuron follows the NTN DAO’s assigned followee — Anvil. Voting power is not a priority until cICP reaches 400,000 ICP, at which point a new voting system will be introduced.

This new system will use proportional representation, allowing holders to delegate their voting power without needing to lock their tokens.

The cICP neuron will be split into smaller neurons of varying sizes. To set a followee, a holder simply sends 0.5 cICP to a special address — from any wallet they choose. Only one transaction is required to establish the connection. No wallet interface changes are necessary. Once the followee is set, all cICP in that wallet will automatically vote according to the chosen neuron.

When a new NNS proposal is submitted, the voting system:

  1. Takes a snapshot of all cICP holders and their balances,

  2. Checks which known neurons voted “accept” or “reject,” and

  3. Casts votes proportionally based on this data.

For example, if someone holds 1% of all cICP and follows a neuron that votes “accept,” that 1%+ will be applied as an “accept” vote from the cICP neuron.

Any cICP not assigned to a followee will be proportionally redistributed to those who have set a followee. This ensures 100% of the cICP neuron votes — no votes are skipped.

Governance & decentralization

Neutrinite DAO governs Neutrinite DEX and the ICRC55 components, making cICP work.

More than 60% of the entities have large 8-year neurons (Probably the DAO with 8y neuron entities holding the most vp), which are economically incentivized for ICP not to lose its value. The developers also have 8y neuron locked in 2021. Around 30% of the vp is held by the Neuron Fund ~14 separate large neurons which will start voting once there is something meaningful to govern. ~20% Dragginz & Neopets founder Adam. (~20% Neutrinomic foundation ~15% founders - both assigned pre-SNS swap) ~15% other community members.

Once the DAO was launched, we airdropped ~5% of NTN’s tokens, but most of them ended back inside DAO-owned DEX pools. We believe the market cap of 1.7m$ hardly justifies what is being built, so we won’t be voting for any NTN release from treasury until its rate is at least two times the launch swap rate. 20% of the circulating supply is unlocked and inside DEXes - NTN liquidity here ICPCoins . While decentralization through airdrops is not possible, everyone who believes NTN should be more decentralized is welcome to join at a discount currently.

Security

Ledger - governed by Neutrinite DAO, using NNS blessed builds from the SNSW canister
Vectors, minter, DEX, neuron canister - governed by Neutrinite DAO
The neuron is locked for 8 years and can’t move out of the canister. The canister requires critical proposal to change owners. Even then, the neuron can be brought back by the NNS if somehow stolen. Only the daily buy-back stream and DEX liquidity are at risk of cyber attacks.

DeFi

Around 18 months ago, a lot of SNSes started launching. Their treasuries in ICP and their coins were traded in pools paired with ICP. If they were paired with cICP instead, which removes the ICP inflation from the equation and adds some extra APY, these coins would currently have a +40% higher rate. Thanks to cICP’s liquidity net and arbitrage systems also regain another +10%, which they’ve lost. That would allow the public to evaluate these projects better, based on their true value and not on the dilution by inflation in pools and reductions from DeFi inefficiencies.

The liquidity net is growing, and the volume coming from it is currently at ~400k$ a day on hundreds of connected pools. It also protects these tokens from all kinds of manipulations.

cICP now has enough voting power and value in the vault to obtain a node. One approach is to wait for several months - or possibly up to a year - to accumulate a few nodes. Another option is for those who already operate to allow cICP to make the investment instead and collect the rewards, while they become service providers for these nodes.

With 122,657 ICP (worth $643,949) already locked for 8 years, and only one node needed to make cICP deflationary and accessible to all, while boosting DeFi performance - we urge the community to consider helping accelerate the transition to IC 2.0 DeFi.

7 Likes

Are you thinking of registering multiple Node Providers under NTN?

I don’t think a cap of 42 makes sense for the DAO because it can be controlled by multiple people, it’s transparent, and exactly the sort of way that the Node Management should work. Much better than the shambles we currently have.

As long as we could prove that there’s nothing shady going on with the ownership / tokenomics, which sounds feasible, projects like cICP could hopefully count for a big proportion of the network in the future.

42 nodes would be a good start though.

5 Likes

I have a few questions.

Who will own the nodes?

Does having this under NTN dao which is controlled by 3 dev wallets introduce a centralized risk to the people who choose to use CICP?

Will the nodes be governed by NTN dao? Or will the CICP users who funded the purchase of these nodes be partial owners?

Will the purchase of the nodes show the UBO as the CICP users or ntn dao?

Interesting project involving nodes. :smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

So what are the next steps in getting people onboard?

1 Like

I think this is something that has to be worked out fully with Dfinity and the community involved.

Transparency is key, but I believe the goal is for this to be as decentralized and code-governed as possible to avoid any single individuals from being UBOs in the extent that they have control.

I know the idea of a DAO controlled node provider is something that has come up in conversations before. It is fantastic that there is now a use case so we can work together to figure out the best way to achieve this.

3 Likes

In your opinion does a Dao controlling nodes with 3 wallets owning over 55% of vp within this dao qualify for not needing to specify who the UBO is?

I would assume that the dao would need more decentralization to show proof that the owners are the community funding the operation. This seems to open up a similar issue you have tackled prior.

3 Likes

Is it good idea to build projects that depend only on ICP staking rewards? If we want to stay 5 usd range, than no need to change rewards, but if we want for price to go up and lower inflation, we need to cut staking rewards in half. I think wrong people are having too much VP, these guys will never pump price up. No way any outsider coming to pump theyr bags.

Here individual voting power counts though. Votes are made exactly as cast unless I misread the details.

1 Like

Individual only counts beyond 400k icp being staked. And it requires users to set up the followee themselves.(From my understanding) as well as this:[quote=“infu, post:1, topic:49663”]
Any cICP not assigned to a followee will be proportionally redistributed to those who have set a followee. This ensures 100% of the cICP neuron votes — no votes are skipped.
[/quote]

Does this mean inactive users will get their vp taken by active voters? It seems as if this will allow savy users to accumulate vp through other peoples capital and through retail funding nodes for them.

It will be interesting to see the actual amount of vp left with ntn vs users doing this.

Does this remove the need to show the ownership of the hardware of the nodes? My understanding has been that the ownership of the node and the money used to buy it is what matters and not the vp associated with the node rewards.

2 Likes

Sounds complex, but very cool! The node provider bootstrapping idea is also very interesting. I’ll be following this closely. I hope DAO-based node providers can become a thing, though I wonder how this would work with data centre contracts and stuff like that.

Would this mean that while someone is in possession of liquid tokens, they could influence the outcome of proposals (by following themself or someone who represents them)?

1 Like

Ah, I just re-read this bit. Very interesting! So the DAO is like a financier for node providers. I think this idea has a lot of potential

It does introduce the question of how the concept of node provider clustering should work in this context

2 Likes

Isnt Neutrinite DAO fully controlled and funded by Borovan? As there was proposal to add node provider DragginCorp SARL, does this mean they use those nodes and pay 300USD per month in NTN to themselves? Im not a fan of 1 person owning half of ecosystem.

2 Likes

NTN DAO Node Provider - we can try to apply like that.
For a few nodes, doubt much will be needed. The DAO can own RWA, it’s just not legally recognized. It’s more of a community-enforced, de facto institution grounded in a shared social contract. For 1 mil ICP, only ~8 nodes are needed, and the risk isn’t high. Very likely, the cICP staking will follow with ICP once 42 nodes get sent inside the buyback stream.

For more, perhaps the current RWA designs will get it done better, using legal wrappers.
The NNS could implement NP reward routing, or we could (depending on how the system is now). In a way, the cICP vectors get the rewards while the NP gets NTN minted for the service payment, and the NP can’t change that. If they stop providing the service, they will have to return the hardware or pass it to the next NP. Not an expert in RWA yet, but we can jointly figure things out.

Best if done so, yes.

Yes, holding the liquid tokens allows you to vote just by holding them in your wallet, unlocked. That’s only possible on-chain on the IC, since a smart contract can reduce the whole ledger transaction log.

Our systems are designed for multi-DAO control from the start. NTN and cICP are just the first; they don’t need to be the last. Ethereum has 6-7 liquid staking tokens for that reason, and LIDO has 30%. We currently have the voting power for 0,05%

1 Like

This part sounds good.

100% of the NP yield is sent to cICP holders? is this correct?

This I’m confused about. Is this coming out of the 95-98% of rewards being used to purchase and burn cICP?

I think @mico has legitimate points about the Nodes. Fortunately the DAO shows transparent ownership. From my understanding of the new Node Provider rules that are soon to be implemented, if anyone has 25% of NTN that would make them a UBO of the nodes, unless I am misunderstanding. Of course the goal of this would be to further decentralize the DAO as the project grows.

95% of the yield is sent to cICP holders (both neuron maturity and NP rewards go to the same buyback stream). 5% to burn NTN. That’s the design. If someone has a problem with it, we can figure something better out.

95%-98% go to a neuron right away. The rest go to the NP vault. None of these burns NTN.

NTN with is one of the easiest DAOs to decentralize. Price was linked to ICP; ICP fell. Additionally, it’s 10-15% below the swap price now. Pretty sure everyone in NTN would be happy with it getting decentralized more.

1 Like

NTN has a long way to go to prove decentralization. As of right now the 5 dev wallets plus one whale own 90.02% of the vp within the dao.

That opens up the conversation for proving ownership of the nodes to the people whom fund the 5 people to buy these nodes while also having to consider node clusters with adam being a new registered node provider.

Adam only has 23% of the vp within ntn so he would not be listed under the 25% technicality but he is still connected to the nodes cicp will buy while also having a large say in the nodes owned by ntn. As the technical aspect of the dao it would require adam to vote with the devs for critical proposals to pass.

Hopefully this will be looked into with the node providers as the sns daos framework is much different than the traditional business structures when it comes to voting shares.

1 Like

@infu, thank you for the clarification. If you could publish a cliff notes version for dummies like me I think that would might be helpful to people. This model is more… complicated than others.

@mico, agreed but the product is not launched and they have 0 nodes. Of course they would like more people to buy in. That would best for their project. I still need to do more homework and mull over the economics of this one.

1 Like