I will include this suggestion as an input in the discussion on the next phase of the implementation of the motion proposal.
2 Likes
This is great, ideally we don’t need to wait for 7 days but immediately convert the maturity into staked ICP with the modulation applying of course.
Could you also speak with the team of the possibility to convert the STAKED maturity directly into STAKED ICP eventually ? Currently, the staked maturity is sentenced to keep being staked maturity until the neuron dissolution without any possibility of conversion of this kind of maturity.
By offering the possibility to convert STAKED maturity into STAKED ICP, of course applying again the price modulation, people can come back from STAKED maturity to ICP without having to dissolve their neuron : by doing this we offer the possibility to those wanting to EVENTUALLY get ICP only to benefit of the auto compounding feature (because, yes, some people don’t want to get STAKED maturity).
In summary, we need more conversions to staked ICP, even applying the price modulation because some people want to keep staked ICP ONLY and then don’t want to use the staked maturity, but maybe they could find benefit in using it if they could use it to auto compound before converting the stake maturity into staked ICP.
I think that, as long as you keep your price modulation feature, and then the unpredictability of conversion, these other possibilities are legit.
1 Like
I will also include this suggestion as input for the discussion on the next round.
As mentioned above, personally I am a bit sceptical because this seems to go against the spirt of the motion proposal, but I am happy to collect further opinions on it.
Thanks for the input and yes I will include the ideas on conversion to staked ICP in the discussion with the team.
As a side comment: The purpose of the 7 day period is to have the uncertainty thus immediate conversion would probably not work.
1 Like
I understand ! Thank you very much.
Will we have to possibility to mint a portion or 100% from a 8 years staked maturity to a 8 years ICP neurons?
Or if a staked maturity account is completely frozen for the choosen time just the same as an actual neurons?
Will we have to possibilty to manage both an ICP staked neurons and staked maturity neurons?
thanks for clarifying
No
Yes
There is no such things as staked neurons. Neurons are currently constituted by :
– staked ICP (it is not the neuron which is staked, but ICP : you stake ICP to create a neuron)
– maturity (so said « liquid »)
Once the proposal implemented, a neuron will be constituted by :
– staked ICP
– liquid maturity
– staked maturity (if you previously staked liquid maturity)
You will be able to disburse your liquid maturity as ICP or stake it as maturity, in the second case, it will become a staked maturity that you won’t be able to manage anymore once staked until your neuron’s dissolve delay reach zero, just as you can’t do anything with your staked ICP before the dissolution of your neuron.
So see the staked maturity as staked ICP without having totally the same nature (you will even be able to have a neuron with 0 staked ICP and 100% of staked maturity).
So, one neuron : staked ICP + maturity (to disburse or to stake). If you stake the liquid maturity totally, your neuron become : staked ICP + staked maturity. And you won’t be able to get back your staked maturity before your staked ICP (or the contrary) : they are staked in the same boat, called « neuron » !
Only one difference : you can “exchange” your liquid maturity for staked ICP (it is explained in the proposal), by doing this, you kind of withdraw your staked ICP and replace them with staked maturity ; to say it differently, it is like indirectly convert staked ICP into staked maturity, BUT you can’t indirectly convert staked maturity into staked ICP : here is the difference between staked ICP and staked maturity : one can become the other, but the other can’t become the first one (this is how you can eventually have neurons constituted only by staked maturity without implying any staked ICP anymore).
This is why I was asking to @bjoernek the possibility to exchange the staked maturity for staked ICP, rather than only allow exchange the staked ICP for staked maturity : some of us prefer having neurons without any staked ICP, for countability and tax reasons, but not only this.
I hope it will help you.
1 Like
Wow, million thanks for your generous explanation.
Mays I ask you quickly the process for someone who will want to use a portion of his rewards every month? Example a person receive approximately 100 ICP equivalent in maturity and want to keep approx 20 icp for living and reinvest the rest in the 8 years lock up maturity? Will there be a way to cash only a portion on regular interval?
Of course, in the current state of the implementation to come, you will have the choice between 3 ways of doing things :
First possibility :
1 – Click on “Disburse Maturity”, choose the percentage of maturity you will have accumulated (in your case, 20%). Once it is done, you will have to wait for 7 days before getting your 20ICP DIRECTLY transferred into your ACCOUNT (there will not be neuron created anymore like there is right now when you spawn your maturity)
2 – Click on “Stake Maturity” for the 80% of your remaining maturity.
Second possibility :
1 – Click on “Disburse Maturity” and choose to disburse 100% of maturity you will have accumulated. Again, once it is done, you will have to wait for 7 days before getting your 100 ICP DIRECTLY transferred into your ACCOUNT
2 – Click on “Stake ICP” and select 80% of your received 100 ICP in your account, to stake 80 ICP into your neuron.
The difference is : in the first case, you stake maturity, whereas in the second one, you stake ICP
Third possibility :
1 – Exchange 20% of your maturity for STAKED 20 ICP : it will withdraw 20 staked ICP of your neuron and will “replace” it with 20% of staked maturity. The 20 ICP will be unstaked and will be transferred into your account.
2 – Stake the 80% of your not yet staked maturity (or liquid maturity) remaining in the neuron
1 Like
Although I started the original discussion on this feature, I want to go on record that I think it is a very bad idea. I predict it will not benefit price, not help anyone with their taxes, and it will further complicate an already very complicated system – in ways that may introduce unknown complications that will themselves have to be mitigated later, as happened with changing voting weights. Clever ideas on top of complex systems often seem like a good idea before they are put into practice.
Instead, I think the IC should double down on stability and correctness, and give the market a few years to show us, by real data, where the NNS needs to change with respect to maturity.
22 Likes
Hi all, FYI the change on maturity modulation is now live.
John, doing this disclosure is all to you honor. Not because you say and think exactly what I am saying from the beginning, but because you are telling us that, although you were opposed in this change, you were doing what you were told to do and had no other option as a Dfinity employee. Many times you wrote us that you were going to ask to the team, tell to the team, etc.
With all the respect, I also see @bjoernek doing the same thing now. He also tell us he will ask to the team, talk to the team. Lately, it was obvious to me, that the relyed a pre-formated answer explaining why Dfinity was reverting their own vote and take back the governance weight to 1. He said it was because the spams were confusing the newbies and kind of preventing the growth of the ecosystem. The problem with this excuse is that some people said they were trusting him for the given reason.
Following this logic, how can we convince a new investor to lock his ICP in the NNS and explain him how the rewards works from now. Total, total, total non sense.
With your disclosure, you confirm what many of us already suspected, meaning what Dfinity employees post here on the forum does not mean they believe in it, neither agree with it but need a paycheck for their family, wich I truly understand.
This is a lot of courage on your part and I truly appreciate the person that you are.
Tip for running an organization efficiently:
Everyone should stay in their field of expertise
Marketing expert do the marketing
Communication expert take care of communication
Human ressource management expert manage human ressources
Tax firm expert manage and advice on tax management
Chief scientist blockchain stay in the blockchain development and programming.
And chief scientist blockchain stay away from Twitter.
Simple, right?
EDIT: For people who may be tempted to answer me that this post is not relevant to this forum, I want tell them that it does a lot. Now people will think twice before voting.
If @jwiegley would have made this disclosure (like I do it but think it is bad) before the vote, the result may (would) have been much different.
2 Likes
Thank you, cote. Your response prompts me to clarify one more thing: Although I have had disagreements with some of DFINITY’s ideas, I’ve been proven wrong enough times that I’m willing to wait a moment before publicly voicing an objection. I had my reservations about compounding maturity from the beginning – and said so many times internally – but I always knew that I could be wrong, and that I wanted to know the opinion of the majority without swaying the vote due to my position at DFINITY. Therefore, like the idea or not, it was important for me to stay neutral and simply facilitate the discussion rather than direct it.
I’m speaking up now because much time has passed, I’ve had opportunity to consider the idea further along with its implications, and now as an outsider my neutrality is not so much an issue. I speak as a long-term stakeholder in the network, and a private individual who is committed to its enduring success.
So, if Björn is not voicing objections, please don’t think it’s because he bottles them up in fear of endangering his livelihood. This is not the case. As builders of the IC we were/are servants of the community, and it’s important for us to hear from you what you want that network to be. In order to do so, our own voice must sometimes take a back seat.
12 Likes
Thanks John, for this clarification. A few questions:
At the time of running the proposal (48623) through NNS & all it’s debate on this forum, you had doubts about the proposal that you articulated internally (to dfinity) but didn’t do so externally.
If so, why didnt you simply abstain for running the proposal? Why did someone who was completely convinced that this was the right proposal head running this proposal?
Since you wanted to know the opinion of the majority and facilitate the discussion, what opinion did you form from the discussion on the forum?
Were you authorized to pull the proposal out of consideration (or felt that you could pull this proposal out of consideration) prior to it reaching the NNS for voting?
Some quick answers:
-
Since my disagreement was not moral, but merely technical, I had no issue with implementing it against my objections. As a principal engineer working in that area of the product, it was my responsibility to execute the designs of my CTO and CEO.
-
The opinion I formed is that the community is very divided on this matter, and so DFINITY should proceed with caution.
-
No, I did not have that authority. I was able to give feedback on the design at all levels, but the executive decision was not in my hands.
7 Likes
Roman, just want confirm if the amount of ICp for the 7 days Disburse Maturity will be subject to the modulation?
Totally !
Disburse maturity and Exchange maturity will be subject to modulation. To say it in a simpler way : every move from maturity (liquid one or staked one) to ICP will be modulated.
So, just think : « if my operation implies ICP, it is modulated »
1 Like
My understanding of proposal 48623 is that exchanging maturity does not mint ICP and is therefore not subject to maturity modulation.
It does not mint ICP, but your maturity has nevertheless an equivalence to a determined amount of ICP and this amount is the same in both cases : either minted ICP, or exchanged ICP. It is the market conditions which say how much ICP your maturity worth, and up to you to get this equal amount by using “disburse” or “exchange”, but the amount stays the same.
So let us say that you have 10 staked ICP within a neuron, you have 10% of maturity and the market conditions are terrible :
– either you disburse your maturity and will receive : 1ICP minus the 5% of modulation = 0,95ICP
– or you exchange your maturity for staked ICP in the neuron, while converting that maturity (10%) into staked maturity (10%) : but by doing this, you withdraw 10% of your staked ICP minus the 5% of modulation = 0,95ICP, given the fact that it is what worths your maturity due to the market condition of my example.
Again, the ICP worth of maturity is the same, the only difference is between letting staked ICP in your neuron and “empty” your neuron by replacing its ICP with staked ICP, to eventually get only staked ICP within your neuron, if you want. But as long as you trade your maturity for ICP or staked ICP, the amount of ICP is modulated : the only way to not suffer or benefit the modulation is by converting your maturity into staked maturity and letting your staked ICP as they are (it means, by not using “exchange” feature).
In one word “move anyone of your ICP, in a way or another, and the modulation applies, just stake your maturity without doing any exchange, and you are invisible for the modulation” :
– disburse maturity make ICP move, then the modulation applies
– exchange maturity make ICP move, then the modulation applies
– simply stake maturity does not, then the modulation does not apply
2 Likes
Where in the proposal does it say this? If it worked in this way, the maturity modulation would be applied twice to the same maturity, first when you exchanged maturity and second when you dissolved the neuron.