It’s kind of irritating that @Leadership lets you get away with name calling such as cabal, which is a label you routinely apply in a derogatory and demeaning way. Maybe they will also make allowances for calling you and your kind assholes. I’m sure others can come up with even more (in)appropriate labels. What do you think? Is that fair?
By infus logic he is sponsored by Adam since he is the one funding all his operations. As well as everyone who works for ntn. All would be “sponsored” by Adam.
Which makes sense since he can’t logically defend cicp which is why he must go to name calling.
1 Like
you do realize you just said the exact issue I laid out.
Transferring cicp is transferring active 8yr vp. It is nothing like transferring icp before it is staked.
In case you need a eli5 for this.. you can’t transfer staked icp. Meaning you can not transfer vp associated with the icp. So by transferring cicp you are giving people the opportunity to do an otc sale with no transparency to buy 8 yr vp. You’ve created a worse solution to the problems you claimed were so important to you and your sponsors.
I think youre missing the point.
you dug a 1 month old thread out of the trash to cast doubt on this project during a time when @infu and his competitors have made a conscious decision to live and let live.
Understandably this pissed him off. And he gave it right back to you. I would prefer the live and let live approach, for now.
Theres enough fud out there without the infighting.
Im trying to be reasonable too.
1 Like
You realize I’m asking him about obvious issues with the protocol?
I’m not sure how it’s an issue to question the security of cicp.
A little weird to white knight for him after he ignores actual criticism about the protocol. Wouldn’t you rather know answers of how the vp of the network is secure vs just wanting to hate “their competition”
Its not if youre doing it from a place of intellectual honesty, as a concerned cicp holder or ntn dao member.
But we both know thats not the case… ill just leave it at that.
Right….
so I guess the security of the network only applies to one product and not the other in your eyes.
Im still not sold on liquid staking in general. (Economically)
The way i see it:
The more staking protocols there are, the more the 10% of canister controlled max vp Gets diluted the better. I hope there are many more of these projects which will dilute the vp and network security risk of any individual one.
1 Like
Right.
Then why are you not interested in how these liquid staking solutions secure vp?
It really shouldn’t be that hard for infu to answer my basic questions. To me it seems like he doesn’t want to answer either because he is mad at me or he doesn’t like the answer he would have to give.
He answered your questions.
Even though they were intellectually dishonest trite like:
“Somwun could bribe sumwun with cicp”
- applies to literally any asset
And
“They haz to follow sumwun their vp is too liquid”
- So you must also be against the following system in the nns that allows anyone to change their following to anyone they want at anytime. Seems like your issue is with liquid democracy and not cicp.
1 Like
So you do not care if infu says transferring cicp is the same as transferring icp?
It seems his answer was also dishonest yet you care about a retail investor vs the founder lying about the impact of cicp and vp becoming transferable.
It is nothing like transferring icp before it’s staked.
you are ignoring a major flaw in cicp just because you like Adam and infu more than the others.
I’m generally curious, would a cICP/nICP trading pair on the Neutrinite Dex be a good idea? Why hasn’t it been created if it is? Cheers