that number is irrelevant. It’s their money anyway.
there’s 2 parties
the DAO whose assets are locked in the 8 year
and the nICP holders whose assets are locked in the 6 month.
The only economic exchange happening is funds crossing between these 2 parties.
surely you are intelligent enough to understand this.
I think wenzel answered this pretty good.
But your graph is misleading imo and didn’t show the relative growth of both parties benefiting.
What do you think about this idea?
WaterNeuron splits the main 8 year Neuron into two, one that always votes yes and one that always votes no? That way we don’t have to worry about the cabal controlling the vote any more.
There is no cabal. This has been disproven many times.
Its not misleading.
Your diagram is accurate at the protocols infancy
My diagram is accurate when the protocol is mature.
Its the same picture i just drew mine to scale and removed the numbers that obfuscate the business model.
Let’s see where @EnzoPlayer0ne and Leo’s stablecoin code ends up before we make a decision there. They’ve been caught with their pants down enough times recently.
Right wenzel, see usually value has to come from somewhere. In most models there needs to be a participant engaging with a product at a net loss in exchange for a service that has intrinsic value to them.
In this case both the dao and the nICP holders are profiting. There is no party operating at a loss… because the loss is absorbed by all icp holders who are not participating via inflation.
In my opinion APY from staking is not value being created, its money printing. The only way to justify this is by locking liquidity.
In fairness to the WaterNeuron dev team, their original proposal at WTN launch was that all NNS votes are an automatic no vote. There was some opposition to this by several people including me, although I can see how this might be more attractive from your perspective. Voting half yes and half no is just as bad as an all no vote in my opinion. NNS votes should never be pencil whipped or automatic. We should strive for a governance system in which every vote is credible and intentional. It’s what the NNS pays us to do. Everyone should be voting with the long term best interest of the IC in mind, which is why it is important for WTN voters to get our voting mechanism right.
There are certainly improvements opportunities, but your constant attacks and FUD about WaterNeuron are just getting in the way of deliberating on those improvement opportunities and it is making the WTN dev team less and less interested in paying attention to you and doing something to meet you in the middle.
WTN stakers are not profiting from nICP staking yet. We have spent far more ICP for our WTN tokens or put in far more sweat equity versus any ICP returns we have received from nICP staking. It’s vastly disproportionate. The returns for WTN token holders won’t take effect until a lot more nICP exists, which is debatable if that will ever happen (in my opinion). WaterNeuron exists and people buy into it because they believe that a liquid staking protocol is critical for defi to grow significantly in the ICP ecosystem.
I agree. you’re waiting for stage 18x. And I think we both know this is a high probability of occurring, if ICP has any success this year.
I don’t know where the 18x number comes from (because I don’t pay attention to it or even care about it), but yes it is a long way off.
8 year neurons have 2x vp and rewards
.1y = 2 * .9x
y = 18x
so the breakeven point occurs in the economic exchange when the 6 month neurons are 18x bigger than the 8 year neuron, I think you already knew that, being an analytical chemist and what not.
Why not accept what I tell you instead of constantly claiming to know what I think. Like I said, I’ve never given it any thought because I don’t care. It’s not what inspires me to participate in WaterNeuron. My focus has always been on trying to contribute in credible and reliable ways that help WaterNeuron takes its NNS governance responsibility seriously as early as possible.
Otherwise, thank you for the education. Your logic is clear.
fair point. my apologies.