(post deleted by author)
Building a bridge to Coinbase on a chain that is meant to become the singularity is now proof of bad actors 
What is more likely?
- WTN poses a risk to the network
- This thread will be productive
0
voters
Think carefully and decide! 
Allowing inflows of ICP from retail investors with no skin in the game, and giving the associated voting power to a DAO that is 51% controlled by people who have gamed the system and stand to benefit from the downfall of the IC
Reply to that. Stop deflecting. Can you see anything possibly bad with what I just typed.
1 Like
Just wanted to sum up some of my thoughts here.
Part of the fundamental design of the network is that both rewards and governance are tied to a long term stake.
At some point we decided that it was ok to allow systems (canister controlled neurons) which allow individuals or groups to build clever financial tools that circumvent this fundamental design.
We are now reaping what we have sewn.
The question is what should be done about it? If anything.
I personally would like to go the route of liquidating all the icp in wtn and returning it to the dao and the nicp holders and dissallowing canister controlled neurons, because i believe this was a mistake.
I dont think im going to find support for this view
I hope some people smarter than me can offer a useful solution.
I worked out where the Game theory leads and its not good. it leads to all the vp on the network coalescing in the hands of multiple liquid staking providers. And this will not lead to a healthy future for the network. Some smarter people than me figured this out a long time ago, and they campaigned for and built WTN.
The only free market way to fight back is to not buy nICP but you do so at your own detriment as everyone buying nICP will cause dilution of your liquid ICP. Its a very challenging topic.
If you read all of this and you still dont care, i got some nachos to sell you.
https://forum.dfinity.org/t/nachos-my-100-original-idea
1 Like
Then Dfinity limits the neurons’ voting power to 10% as previously stated.
Correct that is why
Keyword being multiple. Do you think when we have 10 liquid staking providers offering similar deals their interests will not be aligned?
I thought about this for more than 10 minutes. And so did the guys who built this clever thing.
Like it or not, ICP needs liquid staking for adoption. This is why most of the OGs have left ICP. Too much gatekeeping. With the long-term staking that ICP has, not having liquid staking is not an option if this network is ever to become something.
1 Like
Apologies my original response was a bit rude.
@Forreal
You are making an assertion here that in my opinion is not self evident. You asserting it does not make it true.
I can hardly blame you though because those arguments are precisely what led us here. And look at the results we have all the biggest whales in the ecosystem in a turf war over control of this financial nuclear weapon, the arms race has already begun.
I would argue that it would be better for the network if participants who wanted short term stakes could do so in the nns for decreased rewards. Rather than to have complex financial instruments that allow people to have their cake and eat it too.
Or we can just let the cold war arms race continue under justifications such as “we need it for adoption.”
But as i already stated:
1 Like
DFINITY still triggers 85+% TVP on all technical proposals. There isn’t enough ICP in existence to overtake the vote that DFINITY triggers. If liquid staking exceeds 10% of NNS voting power, or any new 6 mo neuron of any size suddenly shows up regardless if it is a liquid protocol, DFINITY could mitigate an attack immediately.
Disregard i reread your post i get it now. @wpb
I think we’re worried about future levels not today levels. Thats why we want to fix it now.
Massive liquidity inflows could change those numbers in a heartbeat.
I’m open to middle of the road solutions wenzel. As i dont expect people to want to dismantle completed products.
Can we atleast agree that all the vp on the network being in the hands of multiple liquid staking providers is probably a bad thing? And work backwards from there as to how we avoid that timeline?
Alternatively you could explain to me why this line of reasoning is wrong:
The new way periodic followee reset is setup, will;
- Remove voting power assigned by DFINITY to DFINITY at Genesis
- Remove voting power from the NNS as a whole
Effect 1. is great; they shouldn’t assign themselves users voting power (it should be naturally delegated by the owner), especially after 4 years.
However, when Effect 2. occurs & you start removing voting power from the quorum:
So far, ~120M VP / 60M ICP / 300m$ has been removed,
When you also consider node providers print hundreds of thousands of ICP a month, CEXes have ~60m ICP currently on hand, and SNS projects abuse(d) the neuron fund to print more ICP, the game theory suggests that this is possible.
I mean, we all agree ICP has the tech to take on multi hundred billion dollar industries, right?
Why wouldn’t these pre existing web2 companies (that specialize in acquisition to maintain monopoly) employ these tactics here?
2 Likes
People buying icp have skin in the game.
You are assuming a lot of things in this loaded statement to try and sound scary. All your concerns are answered by the white paper and the rules set by Dfinity allowing the canister controlled neurons.
One last thing I was thinking about @wpb
I think a lot of your arguments stem from the fact that you are personally invested and spend much of your time and effort determining what is best for the network.
I know you see yourself as a qualified arbiter and protector of what has been built here, and you probably are but not all of your current or future peers may share your good intentions.
youre failing to consider the fact that WTN is just the first of many staking protocols to come. The precedents we set here will be used in the future.
When jeff bezos decides we are a threat i dont want him to get 10% of the network at a discount. I want him to pay full price.
When he shows up, his eight year neuron for his staking protocol will be bigger than yours, YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS should consider this risk.
Theres always a bigger fish, wenzel.
I feel truly honored to be mentioned among this All Star group of ICP contributors. I’m not as relevant as the others, but I’m grateful to be considered anyway. This means a lot @borovan. Thank you.
I still think 10% NNS voting power being cast by canister controlled neurons is too much. I’d say 5% is about the limit of what I’d like to see. However, the limit was proposed by DFINITY and set by the NNS. Those are combined numbers, not individual project numbers. It doesn’t really matter how many liquid staking protocols there are given the NNS limit of 10% is cumulative, not individual, according to proposal 129727.
I see it differently. I don’t try to claim that I am capable of making the right decisions on technical proposals. Instead, I prefer to try to find technical people who can prove that they have the technical abilities to perform the work and all I do is try to find the funding that incentivizes them to do it. My goal is to lead by example. I don’t want CodeGov or Synapse to be the only known neurons trying to help advance decentralization of the NNS. My preference is that there are dozens of known neurons with the same or better capabilities.
WaterNeuron is just the first liquid staking project. I assume there will be more. If so, then CodeGov will participate there as well if it makes sense. My hope is that all liquid staking protocols will take their responsibility for NNS governance seriously.
2 Likes
Thank you i did not realize this distinction that changes the math a lot.
Cumulative, this seems like a good compromise.
Im glad we agree on something.
2 Likes
Welcome to the community 2 hour old new account. I’m surprised to see you back given you frequently get banned for violating forum ethics.
Looks like all the NNS parameters can be gamed (and others probably) with enough vp.
If someone changes the “clear_following_after_seconds” to 1 sec. Does that mean Dfinity looses all the voting power on code upgrades @wpb mentioned?