This comes across as a pretty desperate idea, made worse by the repeated justification that it comes from a “master of economics”, yet the concept is to unilaterally remove future liquidity from the investment, a move singularly rejected and opposed in all regular market economics.
Decentralization, ownership, web3 noise… all of this is, imo, about having autonomy online and having full control of your digital assets and data in a way that outdoes the regular web2/fiat system. I would also argue that, not only does this proposal not make contractual sense, but it re-emphasises a centralization and control mentality and is counter to the underlying principles of the entire movement.
What about 8 years from now when 100M ICP is unlocked and immediately floods the market? All this does is move the problem forwards into the future. Years of price growth would be immediately erased by such a massive shock. Assuming anybody would still choose to invest and stake knowing that the their holdings could be forcibly locked up again in the future, and that a massive dump is coming in T-minus 8 years.
If you genuinely spend over 10 seconds trying to empathize with those early investors who took a risk and spent previous years building their network & reputation to be in a position of an early investor in ICP, and came up with the conclusion that they’d react like you suggest then I personally think your judgement is questionable.
There’s palpable anger here. Why so upset? It’s simply a proposal, and it appears that “no” will be the victor here. Are you angry that retail investors want price action to reverse? Or are you just upset that you’re scheduled to unlock in a few months and this could interfere with your dumping millions of ICP into the market?
Regardless, we all know this won’t pass; retail investors simply don’t have the voting power of the “old money” seed investors.
This is a sarcastic post and a sarcastic proposal if you guys still haven’t noticed.
What he is trying to prove is whoever thought of unlocking all seeds neurons at once is a moron. If they could try to do that why can’t he suggest locking all up for 8 years .
Stop poking noses into other’s wallet’s, adhere to code and be a decent human being in general, end of thread.
Crazy how this steaming pile of feces of a thread has blown out to 50+ replies in 1 day, the stench is unbearable, clean it up.
ICDevs.org is rejecting proposal 87478(locking seed neurons) for a number of reasons, most specifically that it violates the principle of non-coercion. We’d be more than happy to consider new incentive-based reasons to encourage these neurons to #8yeargang.
I support more good faith debates in ICP, even when I disagree. Thank you, Smaug for taking the time to share your ideas in good faith.
To be honest, the main reason I voted against THIS proposal is because I am very much a “dont do big things in complex systems” kind of guy. You could argue i am risk averse in tokenomics.
The idea of either locking OR unlocking any large amount of neurons changes the rules so much for my taste, that I would like to see some data or experiment to make sure it does more good than harm. I can come up with lots of stories where its good for the ecosystem and equally i can create stories where its bad, so I rejected this because “too rich for my blood.”
But I appreciate the good faith arguments. So i voted for your known neuron proposal.
I support the idea of reestablishing a good relationship with seed investors, for common sense, we want their ICP not only to stay, but to put that to work and be productive for the ecosystem.
I also believe in Collective Intelligence and that we can bring back investors trust with a reasonable plan and strategy for the IC to thrive, all we need for now is to move a side our personal interests and agendas for a greater good, after all we are all in this together.
The main purpose of ecosystem participation is the pursuit of profit
Whatever the reason, it markedly killed the will of seed rounders to participate.
With 150x gains already, there will be little motivation.
Also, for developers, such an environment is considered harsh
Whose sacrifice are you asking for?
enoki must have thought the same
this is really important!
No angry by a simple price drop
I hate the current tokennomics that are unfair and classify investors.
I don’t know why my favorite icp has to have this distortion
I think that any decision to penalize an investor after the fruit of that investment has begun to benefit others, is a terrible decision. They took a risk in supporting DFINITY before the IC existed, so I have no desire to limit or change their reward for that risk.