sacrifices must be made
1 Like
Don’t even think about it, destroying the law is equivalent to destroying faith, if I have the opportunity, I will also destroy the ii account buying and selling behavior! If you pledge for 8 years, you will be with ICP for 8 years. If you want to escape, I’m sorry, it’s impossible!
@blockpunk thanks for taking the time. Think the proposal is well written and thought.
But right now, you have already a live alternative that achieves the exact same outcome, that is Id Geek:
Holders can and should sell their II at a loss according to their “urgency”.
No need to intervene and change the locked amounts and rules.
Can you clarify if Id Geek marketplace solves or not your needs?
Hope this helps 
3 Likes
That’s not true. You have to give up your whole anchor. You might have two years of social app build up on that’s. SNS tokens locked up. If someone needs their ICP only they should have that. Also what if your ledger is attached
4 Likes
Why not just use idgeek?
1 Like
Those who use tricks to try to cancel their commitments and try to escape with the least cost, anyone who is bullish on ICP will not agree
I started out on the NNS locking in 300 ICP coins to be part of this project and had no real idea about what I was involved with when staking.
12 months later I believe or as I understand it now.
I am supposed to vote on issues and have found like this morning the only votes on proposals are mostly upgrades and most of the time, as I follow, they have gone through nearly as quickly as they appear.
I have received around 70 rewards.
The ICP coins value has dropped by ⅔’s
I do not see that I am of any value whatsoever as a staker and now I have the opportunity to staking in other projects spending more hours of my day not contributing to anything other than my stake and time.
Now you want to penalise me by taking my rewards by getting out quickly, already taking a loss on my investment and of no worth to the project.
I now realise that ICP is nothing more than a payment for cycles and I will never be able to buy a coffee, except, I will now start dissolving and buy a milkshake in 8 years.
I am 100% agreed.
Dont forget that liquidity is vital
1 Like
Honestly we need to prevent neuron marketplaces.
This isn’t a bad idea provided safeguards exist to prevent too many neurons from being unlocked at the same time.
This proposal achieves all of that. I think it makes sense.
1 Like
The IC utilizes a reverse-gas model, so non-code minded and the general non-crypto person can interact with the IC without being involved or knowing they are participants in crypto.
The locked (staked) ICP rewards owners of ICP and incentivizes them additional votes in our governance system and pays them rewards for doing so. While benefiting other holders by having their ICP locked and making it scarce. You and the scottsummers person sound like you are trying to destroy ICP? Maybe I’m confused but could you explain.
You realize there are neurons with millions of ICP locked? No matter what % cut they get on their ICP if they use the emergency unlock feature and decide to sell since they will be in huge gains. they will tank the price and would be in profits by miles. Im against this
Yup, by then the IC should be flying, DFINITY and Don would have moved on and I should have enough for that milkshake.
Which website, and why does it matter if it is not?
My observation of the IC as it is today.
Currently I see that this project is and has overcome many of the problems of other coins.
While the IC has built connections to other coin systems for Speed, Transaction Cost and Security, what do I feel the IC has been given in return, Nothing, we are ignored for showing and fixing their weaknesses and in return they try to improve those same faults, poorly and do not show any interest or recognise the efforts of the IC.
Those who want to execute an emergency, get out of your staking and are willing to give away your rewards, sound a bit extreme and I think you should consider your choice.
While at this time the IC is making connections to other coins and inviting new projects onto the IC as this is very important but as I have seen of late, there seems to be a new push for projects to get onto and connect to the IC on their terms and conditions bypassing the NNS.
Some with quite arrogant attitudes.
I want to stay staked in the IC as I believe that at some point we will come to understand that most other projects out there have no interest in furthering the IC and have their own interest and reasons for joining the IC.
Let’s just consider the main purpose of the internet, transferring of data and information and the payment of these services. While many other projects want to build for their own reasons they seem to lack or just create the same old system of problems and practices with the emphasis of having a following.
The IC has rebuilt the internet with speed, low transaction costs and the best security. As it is an infrastructure and not a following or a service and or a data provider as such and already has a payment system built in then why are we not creating or extending this so we as ICP holders are able to purchase items as a replacement for all the old payment systems connected to fiat monies.
We are seeing many banks fail with trust in the old system at an all time low while other coins projects are still connecting to these old systems. We have the ability to create a new payment system of trust far from the old system and the public would buy ICP’s for transactions.
I would suggest that we not talk about the emergency to get out of the IC as stakers but on how we could further the IC and talk about and vote to make choices about the future direction of the IC so one day we could have our own purchase card and buy a coffee.
The root of this proposal has a few things that I do really like and I think it hints at some mechanisms that may offer some flexibility to enduring the full neuron lock all the time while still maintaining the fundamental network assumption.
-
I would imagine that there is some period maximum that is low enough that someone could show that it was virtually impossible to profit from a hidden information attack. It at least increases the risk of their attack in that they have a much harder time calculating their return to justify the attack and if the information leaks earlier then their return plummet’s exponentially as the entire network races to exit.
-
My biggest concerns with neuron transfers has been the reduction in forward-looking tendencies of the entire network because they are no longer required to take an 8 year view on the network. This certainly causes a use to discount their ability to exit as long as the minimum trends very low and can trend even lower.
I do question whether this really helps those that are having an “emergency” because in a “real” emergency they would need to bid as low as possible. Say the mechanism was tied to 10% burn windows with a max of 90%. Wouldn’t anyone in a real emergency always bid 90% and hope for a lack of a full period to grant them a lower burn? Anyone not biding 90% is likely engaging in speculative and not emergency behavior.
The “world” typically provides this emergency through social safety nets at the family, village, municipal, or state level. Volumes have been written about which level is the most efficient and which is best for long term economic and societal help. I wonder if a better facility doesn’t align along those lines more. It is tough to pull that off while staying anon.
It would be great to find a way to collaborative way to help in these situations without anyone having to lose or burn neurons… but that requires an alternative kind of capital(typically social) to account in.
As far as what a “safe” minimum would be, it would likely be really low.
How about we add a proposal that the NNS be capped to a number of stakeholders but mutable and make being a stakeholder something of value of responsibility that rewards are payment for services that are taxed and then available for income for personal use.
That stakeholders number of tokens are also capped for obvious reasons except for DFINITY and certain followed groups that are mutable but essential to the NNS.
I think EOS had something like this where only the top 100 validators could approve blocks. I know it had some issues.
Limiting participants does create “something at stake” especially if you can revoke a voting license or have something like ragequit, but it is hard to align it with robust decentralization and raegequit doesn’t work so well unless the proposals are financial in nature.
I think that a minimum burning ratio must be set, otherwise there may be a situation where unlocking occurs without burning if there are no bidders.
1 Like
Did anyone of you try IDgeek before coming to support this ? What would be the main issue you had just using that simple option ? Curious not judging the 8 year gang/army whatever some of you call it.
2 Likes
The only issue with IDgeek is that people willing to keep some of their neuron or SNS and would be willing to sell just a part of other neurons cant since IDgeek is here to trade the whole account.