Compounding Maturity - NNS implementation update

[Roman]

Thank you for your answer @bjoernek,

Firstly :

@bjoernek

In my personal opinion, I am less worried about the +/- 5% modulation factor (given the overall volatility in the crypto market) but rather increasing the system complexity by introducing a further term “staked maturity”.

I was only using the terms of the proposal itself as show the photo and overall the introduction of the proposal to the forum when we have been asked to give a feedback to Dfinity :

@jwiegley

Change 1: Staked maturity

Each neuron presently has an amount of ICP staked and an amount of maturity earned. In order to introduce the idea of “staked maturity” as separate from “maturity”, the two amounts will be tracked separately.

Secondly :

@bjoernek

If this feature is marked as opt-in, then to my understanding we would defeat the purpose of the motion proposal which has the very aim to ensure that it cannot be predicted how much ICP is produced from maturity.

I disagree about such a description of the purpose of the motion proposal : it has the very aim to ensure that it cannot be predicted how much ICP is produced from maturity, yes, BUT ONLY TO avoid the tax burden for PRECISE people suffering of THEIR tax jurisdiction. I am in favor of relieving them of course, but we are not all in this case, and the disappearing of the tax suffering for this people is about to become an appearing of suffering for other ones. It is perfectly consistent to let predictability for those not suffering from it. We don’t need to go from an extremum to another one : by going to predictability for everyone TO unpredictability to everyone.

By setting this features an opt-in feature : the ones that this proposal was aiming to relieve are relieved, and the ones that have never been concerned by tax problematics keep going on without having to suffer anything.