Thanks for chiming in! Think there may be a bit of misunderstanding between us, though I can see how my misleading title would result in your remarks. My mistake.
When I broadly discuss “Inflation”, I’m generally referring to it in relation to the rapidly growing circulating supply. You will note this in my initial thread open where I discuss the “Total outstanding supply” has only grown ~5% since Genesis - Which is very solid and indicates Inflation itself is quite low! (Guess its all relative)
When you say let’s table this discussion and address during the next bull market – do you happen to know when that will be? Do we know if ICP will be around by then? Do we know how long the bear market will last?
I’m not providing these remarks purely to be snarky. I’m trying to evidence the unknown.
Should we be simply taking a “wait and see” approach?
@ImagineChadParadigm
Only simple question for you. Since you seem to be convinced that the low price of ICP is due to the rewards given to NNS and has nothing to do with the 125m from seed that comes in the market constantly and for the next 3 years…
Questions:
Do you believe that the 8 years gang, who probably 95% are merging their rewards, is the cause of the down price of ICP?
And the 125m 3 years or less have nothing to do with the price action?
I will be honest with you. I don’t know you but your thread seems like:
You are a Dfinity employee or being very close to them (maybe a seed because you defend them so strongly) and colleague to @Kyle_Langham
Due to the strong reaction on Kyle’s tweet, you have have been given to task to have investors to swallow this pill with a different strategy.
Sorry, but I cannot see you otherwise.
I have talked about my lost in a post before. I was not thinking only about me. It was to make you understand all 8 years gang are in big lost. Mostly all this group. With my recent work, believe me, I know what it is to be all in this together. And my lost will not change anything to me financially. How I am really hurt, is to see how strongly Dfinity was promoting the 8 years gang and now, want to remove the rewards because not too many people are locking now, like it was at first. And the reason to do so is so biased. If it would resolve the price pressure, I would be all for it. But you know it will not, as much as me. You are a smart guy and you know the 125m is the biggest problems.
The key word is ‘together’, ǹot only the muti years stakers.
It is obvious that you have only in mind to kill the rewards. You are not even trying to find any other solution. You want to assume the problems are those rewards, with any support proof and your task is totally limited to this.
Can you please only answer my 2 questions, directly with no work around? Repeat them again:
1- Do you believe that the 8 years gang, who probably 95% are merging their rewards, is the cause of the down price of ICP?
2- And the 125m 3 years neurons or less have nothing to do with the price action?
@ImagineChadParadigm
Honestly, only talking for myself now:
I do not care that you kill all the rewards. Seriously, not a bit.
But unlock my 8 years neurons and let me out of all this.
It would be a win-win situation
1- I would be more then happy to leave
2- You would not have to deal with guys like me anymore
3- No more inflation as you want
4- Unlocking my neurons does not trigger any inflation at all, as you want.
So I did lock because Dfinity was promoting a 20% + rewards. You remove the rewards. You unlock my neurons. Fair, right?
Good (I mean bad) strategy to invite almost all developpers in the discussion. Of course, you need the most support as you can.
Spiting (although very politely and professionnaly) on investors (8 years gang) like you do is a terrible mistake for IC and Dfinity.
Believe me, I really like all these guys very much. I was a programmer-developper for over 20 years in medical software field (HIPAA specialist). This is my main background.
To have success in the software industry. (talking by experience), you need to:
Have great product (done by programmers and IC have the best one)
Have investors happy (they are the one feeding the programmers and everything else)
Have a great reputation outside the box to attract clients (no clients, no business). Right now, IC and Dfinity has a great reputation but only between themselves, not outside.
When you own and run a business:
What you like is not important. What’s important is what clients like no matter if you don’t.
Confrontation lead to both loosing, all the time.
Creating a confrontation between investors and developpers, trying to get some support. is a bad idea.
lol, unbelievable…I’m going to try and respond to all of your previous messages in this thread, so bear with me. To answer your questions:
No, I don’t believe the 8 Year gang is the cause of the “down” price of ICP
I absolutely think the 125 M 3 yr or less neurons [that are dissolving] have something to do with the problem
Every step of the way, I tried to empathize with you. I responded to your posts with thought and respect. In my initial post, I brought the thought forward that “Increasing circulating supply” is an issue that needs to be addressed (This would encapsulate the 3yr or less neurons you have described). I fancied the thought of how we could incentivize those dissolving parties to re-stake? I pondered various questions including 1. What if lowlier age neurons received a smaller reward – and explicitly stated I wanted 8-year gang to still retain a larger proponent of the rewards. I also pondered what it would be like if rewards were representative of developer success. I’m merely trying to think outside the box.
Would it even matter either way? Did we not both sign up to join a mutable protocol? The only thing in part I agree with you is that 8 year neurons should have a choice to Rapid-dissolve and/or transfer (Sell?) neuron ownership in the event a large Tokenomics change ensued. Quite a valid point. Encourage you to go read John Wiegley’s recent comments on this very subject.(Need to personally think about the ramifications of such a change much much more)
I have what I consider a sizeable bag of ICP. I partition my ICP into 6 Month, 1 Year, and 8 year neurons. I have absolutely nothing to do with Dfinity nor Kyle, and found out about this project within the last year. Never cared to invest much into crypto before this – quite honestly thought most of the industry was a sham. I literally came out and told you I disagreed with what Kyle & Andrew said in my initial post.
I empathize with Kyle because he has literally poured days of work into promoting our protocol since before he even joined the foundation!!! And he continues to do so, despite all the brash comments directed his way.
If you truly think I have any affiliation with Kyle or the Dfinity foundation, I encourage you to search through my post history. I’ve had posts in the past where I publicly criticized the foundation for not taking adequate steps to address the marketing problem. (Take a look…)
How narrow minded to think I am trying to encourage confrontation between developers and governance holders. I said in my initial post I was trying to encourage civil discourse…
I want everybody who is a stakeholder in our ecosystem to participate - that includes community members, builders, and the foundation. I intentionally picked a group of people across the spectrum.
I’m really sorry dude, truly. But this is not healthy.
Of course it is not healthy. And I wish it was but it can’t be.
From the beginning, Dfinity have strongly promoted to stake 8 years for high APR. They have created the 8yearsgangs (by Whizwang) to move it.
18 months after, while the staking is slowing, they want to remove all rewards while keeping all the neurons locked. How can this be healthy?
You do not try to discuss any other solution. You are only try to take down the posts against this way of doing.
I have never complained about the price going down. I can understand this.
But having investors locking their hard earned money 8 years and telling them they will get zero returns after the fact make no sense to me. Does that make sense to anyone?
So, ok , give me a chance to understand then. After taking down the rewards to ZERO.
Does Dfinity would still promote to investors lock their token in the 8yearsgang?
If, YES, how can they do this?
If NO, what will happen with all the locked neurons for 8 years?
Give us the entire plan so we have a chance to understand?
Give us numbers, proof.
And meanwhile, the 0 to 3 years will keep selling, selling and selling. So, what is their effort to help all of us?
This is the last post I will make you to you my friend.
You are selectively cherry-picking my posts and totally misrepresenting both myself, and the Foundation. I encourage you to go and re-read the entirety of the thread…
I cannot continue this conversation because its already spiraled out of control. There is nothing that I can say to you to because your mind is already made up. You choose to denounce any/all thoughts that don’t fit within the confines of your narrative. (And I respect that right you retain as a governance holder) However, it is honestly too burdensome and totally unproductive for me to engage in such discourse. Where I choose to engage, you choose to personally attack.
There was no attack at all. My opinion. Last post as well
Maybe I am all wrong. Will leave the space for other to comment.
But would have been nice to know what is the plan with the 8 years gang still
And yes, my mind is made up for sure. What about yours? Seems to be the very same.
Good luck Dude (since you are calling people Dude)
It is easy to see that the current ICP inflation mechanism is best for the 8 year gang who want to hold more ICP and worst for the seed investors who only want to sell.
I am wondering if there is a way to make the ICP inflation mechanism immutable.
@coteclaude we already know your opinion I would like other members of the community to participate, I would support the idea of reasonably increasing transaction costs and I think it is a great idea to associate the success of the IC ecosystem with that of investors by creating a burn rate that is One more factor, together with the maturity in the modulation process during the dissolution of the new neuron by making it liquid, is a new rate that would reflect the burning rate, where in the modulation process it could mean +~% of final liquid rewards. Although there is not such an obvious problem with inflation from rewards, I believe that the NNS is a living system that has a duty to evolve for the better and ideas like this try. If the improved tokenomics is more balanced, efficient and symbiotic, this will encourage investors to be more proactive in the governance of the NNS because the success of the IC will depend in part on them as well. Sorry for my English
higher growth = higher ICP burned = higher ICP minted for rewards and proportionally vice versa if growth is reversed. In this way, we reward governance by encouraging the growth of the ecosystem in the medium and long term and dissuade short-term minting that generates hyperinflation.
As long as your neuron continues to be staked, it will generate maturity depending on the dissolution time of between 6 months and 8 years.
Only when you decide to make the liquid maturity in the 7-day dissolution process during the modulation, that burning rate factor would be added along with the current factor price for the final minting, resulting in the sale or dissolution incentive at times of high activity in the IC (high burning rate of ICP) and stable or high price of ICP during the process. discouraging the dissolution of the maturity at times of massive sales due to volatile market cycles or at times of low ICP burn.
With this protocol, a balancing force is generated that will make the tokenomics more balanced and sustainable.
My suggestion is that the overall reward distribution amounts would not be adjusted and would remain on their current trajectory, but that the proportions of rewards going to long term holders would be increased. Something like this:
Let:
R = total rewards distributed in a day
Dx = for neuron x, the total number of days the neuron is staked
Ix = for neuron x, the total number of ICP staked
n = total number of neurons
Then,
Sum, from x = 1 to n, (Dx*Ix) will give you the number of ICP days we have staked. Call this sum S.
Then for any neuron x, (RDxIx)/S is that neuron’s rewards.
Please forgive my terrible mathematical notation. I am typing this on my phone. But basically your proportion of reward would increase linearly based on the number of days you are staked * number of ICP staked. And yeah, the age bonus would apply too, I just didn’t include it. Something like that. Make sense?
A neuron staked for 8 yrs would get 8x the rewards of a neuron staked 1 yr. But the total rewards would still decline as currently scheduled. This would incentive more people to increase their dissolve delay to harness more of the rewards.
Thanks for checking back! I’m quite mathematically inept - but think I have a surface level understanding of your suggestion.
Essentially, you think that we should further increase 8-year neuron rewards levels according to the parameters you have set forth above.
Very interesting suggestion. You are basically thinking further increasing the rewards curve at the latter end may incentivize those who are dissolving to re-stake?
This seems like something the community could hash out further. Not totally sure how I feel about Quantity held in relation to rewards rate. (Ix In your above equation) This would disproportionally benefit larger neuron holders at the expense of smaller. (I’d personally not vouch for this specific factor) Am I understanding right? Everything else seems like a sound suggestion though.
@Kyle_Langham – Is there a way to mathematically compute the proportion of seed round/Strategic round/Private sale round neurons that are dissolving? Really what I’d like to figure out is what percentage of those holders are dissolving, and what percentage of those holders are locking in. I’m aware that dfinity has openly brought forward their Neuron numbers.
Is there a way for you to pull neurons that immediately started dissolving from Genesis? If I recall, the unlocking schedule started monthly from Genesis. (And thus, we could pull specific neurons that started dissolving right from this date)
Such an analysis would provide the community insight about what VC’s/Insiders are doing with their neurons.
For those interested, very solid article. I’d suggest you look at the overall token allocation and vesting schedule.
It would be linear, so if somebody stakes twice as many ICP they would earn twice the rewards, as it is today. The biggest change is to further incentivize staking for 8 years instead of for shorter periods. Basically the same amount of rewards as are distributed at present would be distributed but with a larger skew to the 8-year holders. Someobody staking for 4 years would earn half of what someone staking 8 year earns; somebody staking 2 years would earn half that.
Thanks for deciphering - I get ya now! Sort of digging this idea - but think we need to brainstorm more on how this would encourage those dissolvers to re-stake.
Quoting Kyle Below:
Lets assume using the insight above 3.5 M ICP are dissolving monthly:
3.5 M ICP @ current market value (~6 bucks) = $21,000,000
vs.
3.5 M ICP @ current 8 year rate (Static19.2%, exclusive of age bonus & compounding periods) = $4,172,000 annually. Payback period = 5.033 years holding all else constant.
Thus, the B/E payback for the underlying would suggest ICP needs to be: 5.033 (Payback period) * ~6$ (current market price) = $30.198
Holding all factors static, this underlying price is what would need to be sustained for an x period of time for those holders to be Breakeven under both scenarios. This is a bit of a poor example because obviously nobody has any idea what the price will be, and its totally unrealistic to think the underlying would “Stay” at a static rate.
But in the context of historical prices for ICP, it does shed some insight. Its like herd mentality with the VC’s/Whales I suppose - when one starts to dissolve, they all jump aboard the bandwagon as their own proportional future value is being diluted. They feel as if they have no choice other than to extract as much value as possible…How can we change their philosophy?
I’m honestly not sure what do do here, but I’m determined to strive to find ways with the community in which we can encourage them to re-stake. Maybe its not as big an issue as I think it is - though it certainly feels that way in relation to the data.
- but think I have a surface level understanding of your suggestion.