It’s already solved, I just thought canisters shouldn’t be allowed to set followee, because someone could split cICP’s voting power from the stake, but I changed my mind about the proposed design. SNSes and DEXes can follow neurons with the VP inside them. It’s up to NTN’s governance to monitor if someone tries to split vp from stake and handle that if it becomes a problem.
So if anyone decides to provide liquidity for Cicp do they give the vp to the dex they provide for?
Im sorry if I missed the answer to this.
A quick question relating to this but for Cicp.
Does NTN dao govern changes for the Cicp protocol?
Yes, that is written everywhere, ‘Governed by NTN Dao’
I would blackhole the voting system if I could, but we have a DAO that changes the IC constantly, and that may not be possible. However, we can make everything around it require critical proposals to change. If NTN doesn’t get sufficiently decentralized for that to even work, we could make an NTN neuron from the treasury and let cICP holders vote reject with it on voting system changes.
As you know even critical proposals in NTN are passed by the 3 wallets.
The devs plus adam own 90% of the vp.
Aside from this, the issue I don’t see as solved is the vp for liquidity providers. The cicp selling point is to be staking and keeping vp. For those that do choose to use the cicp to earn extra will lose their vp to the place they provide liquidity. This essentially gifts vp in exchange for apy to the dex they provide for.
And then you have to assume the dex will take the additional responsibility of voting with cicp tokens on top of dealing with their project. If the dex does nothing then the people who do vote or set a following get gifted their vp. In a long way this just hides the vp grab. I don’t think that is the intention but it seems the reality.
2 Likes
I dont think its fair, i think ive expressed that many times already.
I just see them as opportunistic rather than malicious, and i think thats an important distinction to make.
I genuinely hope what youre brewing here is better.
Yes, possible. There are two different mindsets.
One doesn’t believe in IC, Web3 and crypto in general and wants to make a quick risk-free buck from everyone who does believe and everyone who works on improving the IC.
The other one wants to make it grow, be fair and give everyone who believes in it and works on it the rewards.
Some people are on one side, others are somewhere in between.
1 Like
Well, this is the design we propose. A lot of time went into thinking how it will hold up to time and challenges coming from all angles. If someone figures out a possible attack we didn’t think of, that makes it unfair. Please let us know, going to try to fix it. If someone who posted thinks there is still something like that, lets go over it again.
1 Like
To be honest, it seems like a broken system from the start.
The only way to get your apy for staking in the 8yr neuron is to sell on the market. You have to be the first to dump to get any apy or to break even.
If you do choose to earn on the staked icp through providing liquidity you then gift your vp to the dex and if that dex doesn’t vote you gift it to those with a followee set up.
There is a high chance a bank run happens with the tokenomics leaving people that want to exit stuck in cicp with no value other than a vote. They can never get their icp back through unstaking.
1 Like
How much reserves does protocol hold? Lets say most times 1 ICP will be 1.01 cICP, ICP pump comes and reaches sell target, whales will sell most of cICP. When rest of community try to sell cICP, then price is so bad that they might only get 0.7 ICP from selling cICP. This means liquid staking can wipe all staking profits and people will suffer huge losses.
So how safe it actually is, when price goes bad, is NTN be sold to bring price closer to 1 ICP?
In all honesty the only winner when the bank run happens is NTN dao. Funds from the apy will be used to buy and burn NTN (increasing centralization over time)
Fees for using the vectors uses NTN per tx.
NTN gets nodes off retails icp.
Retail assumes all the risk for this to happen with no gurantee they can get their staked icp back at all.
2 Likes
You made some good points but I don’t understand this one. You could say this about literally anything. You could earn additional by providing cICP liquidity on DEXes, you could earn by lending it as lending protocols are develloped, you could use it as collateral to secure loans… so many things you could do to leverage the “unrealized APY.” Let’s stick to honest criticism.
I think the design of this is around long term sustainability and not on making sure everyone max cashes during a “bank run.” Also good news is anyone can buy NTN, so that’s good right?
The point is if you choose to do anything with cicp you give away the right to the vp associated with it.
The issue is people will lose ICP and apy during such an event. People will be hurt by this and have no way to claim their icp back.
As well that NTN is 90% owned by 4 devs and 1 whale. With the buy back and burn mechanism using the apy from the 8 yr neruon they will increase centralization of the dao. There is currently no way for ntn to become decentralized unless the 5 people decide to sell their share.
1 Like
If you expect to lock in 50% of the cICP supply and then take it out in 3 months, yes, that won’t work. You need to calculate when and for how long you need to unlock to get good rates. We’ve given all the parameters needed to make these calculations.
Giving vp to the DEX is pretty much unavoidable at this point. If we figure out how you can keep the vp, sure, we can change that, but I don’t see how it’s possible right now. It will also be at most 5%-10% of the cICP, so not the problem with the highest priority. Besides, why not give KONG, NTN, and ICPSWAP some voting power, after letting them safeguard your stake?
If someone wipes out the whole liquidity over a week and it doesn’t recover quickly, cICP holders are getting a huge APY bonus. With time, it will recover, and they will take out even more ICP. It’s definitely not a coin for the short-sighted.
With nICP, the ones in control are interested in providing the liquidity. If they don’t, people will start unlocking. The price can move between the mint rate and the burn rate (the one resulting in some profit after 6 months of unlock time). Between these two, nICP holders don’t profit anything - cICP holders do. If the price of nICP DEX rate falls, the arbitrage bots that unlock the nICP only profit. In cICP, everyone holding cICP is profiting because the buy-back burns more, and their share of the whole increases. That may not be too much, but every % adds up with time.
Additionally, where nICP benefits from the second staking NP mechanism only for themselves, cICP results in a deflationary coin, by giving it to cICP holders and making sure they don’t get diluted when ICP rate goes down.
Sounds like a similar argument thats used for the other staking solution.
With Nicp you can always claim your icp plus apy even if the market rate dumps. Nicp users never lose their investment. While with Cicp you rely on game theory to retain your icp or risk being left with nothing.
In one sense they are similar where if the market turns for the worse the users have to wait. The only one that guarantees your icp is yours is nICP. With cicp once market recovers you have to hope you are first to claim or risk being stuck again.
I think you have created something brand new and complex. That alone is a great accomplishment. There are just some new risks associated with anything that is novel.
This is what liquid staking is about, and inside the cICP description. The tokens are locked, and that’s why you get APY. You made a trade-off. The trade-off is that you can take liquidity out when there is some, and you can’t when there isn’t. There is no risk-free meal, especially one that compounds rewards. The buy-back stream makes sure it will go back to the mint rate.
When holding cICP you are not left with nothing, you are just here for the long run. With 6mo neurons or holding liquid ICP, you’ve barely understood what the IC is about to be able to vote. It takes a few years. You are just buying low and waiting to sell high while making few % in between. Hardly contributes to the NNS voting system.
When pools get paired cICP/USDT the AMMs do the buying and selling for cICP holders, so they don’t have to lift a finger for years and benefit from ICP going up and down. You don’t get that with nICP.
1 Like
With Cicp you give up the right to your icp in exchange for liquid voting power.
The risk is the market getting dumped on and then youll not be able to get your icp back for an undetermined amount of time.
For my simple mind this is the way I am thinking about the differences.
Cicp - gives up the rights to the icp you stake in exchange for liquid voting rights. (Only if held in your wallet and no where else.)
Nicp - Gives up voting rights for allowing your icp to remain yours while earning apy. Can lend, borrow, provide liquidity and still earn apy on top of staking rewards.)
They seem to be polar opposites but in the end when you choose to do something with them you end up with both of them giving up the right to vote to someone else.
Let’s agree to disagree.
If you think ICP is just going down and down to zero, you better not lock even for a day.
I hope someone else comes up with something that actually challenges cICP’s design.