I know you wont. You have been consistent in your distain for liquid staking from the beginning. That is why there has been no middle ground on this topic between us. We believe in two fundamentally different things.
(Even with those different beliefs weve been able to have good conversations though.)
Liquid Staking with vote > Liquid Staking without vote
lol, please tell me why that is wrong
Although I’m not a fan of liquid staking protocols in general.
I think I would be more agreeable to the vision of WTN if:
The % of rewards flowing from the nICP holders to the DAO decreased as the number of 6 month staked tokens increased. This would make it less of a pyramid. This is not financially beneficial to the WTN DAO, it’s in the interest of nICP holders. I don’t believe the DAO would want to actually do this.
my issues with WTN are more economic, not so much to do with decentralization. I think most dapps are struggling to be truly decentralized, we’re just not there yet.
More peoples votes “counting” is better, obviously.
you believe 0.1% apy of the 6month neuron is too much for a dao that has the responsibility to govern in the best interests of the network? The daos job is to ensure the protection of the nicp users while the nicp users get to reduce concerns of informed voting and or confirming voter followings.
Liquid Staking with vote > Liquid Staking without vote
lol, please tell me why that is wrong
You openly just stated you blindly vote on wtn proposals. Why should I take anything you say seriously when it comes to your concerns of governance topics within the dao?
logical fallacy, look it up, you’re literally a logical fallacy generator
I see.
Please tell me where the wtn dao doesn’t vote.
P.S. all nicp stakers will get wtn airdropped to them at 21m tvl in the protocol. Does this not address the concerns of nicp voter representation?
That picture while showing correct numbers is deliberately misleading as the protocol scales.
They created a spreadsheet early on to show the numbers at scale. Im not sure if this is what you’re referring to
What im saying is that 10% flowing to the dao becomes much much much bigger than the 90% flowing to the nICP holders as the protocol scales. Because the 6 month neurons will scale much faster than the 8 year.
And i think i would be more receptive to the project as a whole if the protocol adjusted itself to reflect this disparity.
Completely weighted towards the early adopters (ie. the dev team) It’s laughable.
You seem to be running out of narrative adam.
I think you showed your hand with the swiss subnet rejection spin. Please go build your solution and stop trying to spin up drama for your entertainment.
for illustrative purposes heres the diagram as the protocol matures and scales.
The only numbers that matter is the exchange between the DAO and the nICP holders. the other numbers are irrelevant (in their economic agreement)
The diagram doesn’t have to look like this, that 10% could decrease as the 6month neuron increases. That’s a design choice.
You are missing the .9% rewards from the 6 month that go right back into the 6 month neuron.
Like the way the dao earns more when there is greater responsibility to vote in the best interest of the network
The rewards going back into the neuron increases the same way.
nICP token holders have zero voting rights in the WaterNeuron protocol by intentional design. It’s what gives them liquidity. Anyone who wants to have NNS governance rights should not stake with WaterNeuron. They can stake in a 6 month neuron and have a short term commitment AND governance rights. With WaterNeuron, they get higher APY and the right to trade nICP tokens, but zero governance rights. We should agree to disagree on whether or not this it ethical to NNS governance instead of continuing to fight about it. The WaterNeuron framework is absolutely allowed by the NNS and was known to everyone who approved the proposal that enabled canister controlled neurons.
There is no assumption that anyone should make. WaterNeuron is very explicit that nICP token holders have zero NNS governance rights. Only a fool would stake with WaterNeuron and assume that they have governance rights in the NNS. It is what it is. Get over it. You had / have the wrong expectation. If you want governance rights in WaterNeuron, then buy more WTN or participate in the SNS3 swap when it occurs some day.
If this makes you happy, then great. Spread this message all you want if you feel WaterNeuron hasn’t done a sufficient job of telling people already. All unstaked WTN are liquid and freely tradable. All nICP tokens are freely tradable…always…because there is no such thing as staking nICP.
There is no cabal, but GoldDAO certainly should care about WTN NNS votes since they are one of the top 5 WTN neuron stakers. They take their responsibility seriously by choosing to follow DFINITY on the NMS topic instead of casting uninformed and/or illogical WTN votes like you @borovan.
nICP holders get value from higher APY and liquidity. They give up NNS governance rights in exchange for this value.
nICP token holders have no vote. WTN stakers take their responsibility very seriously and are well represented.
There is nothing wrong with this model. Stop talking about it and just do it. Perhaps you will be more successful than WaterNeuron if voting rights is what people really want.
This will naturally throttle how much liquid staking that WaterNeuron will ever have. Why would someone want 8% APY with nICP when they can get 7.1% APY in their own 6 mo neuron. Sure it’s attractive when they are getting 15% APY, but this goes down as the 6 mo neuron gets bigger and the 90% contribution of the 8 yr neuron becomes less significant to the nICP APY. I’m still doubtful we will ever see 10% of NNS voting power staked with WaterNeuron, but only time will tell. FYI, I’m in a minority with this opinion.
