Well, it happened. Total supply of Icp tokens has inflated past 500 million. Congrats!
So what is the plan to slow down/stop inflation?
Obviously the usage of the IC network should be increased by ±10x or so. The burn mechanism isnt burning enough ICP compared to the inflation the Neurons, Rewards produce. More Apps, real Defi. I dont view the current products build on top of icp as first level neat stuff. To me everything still seams like “its a big testing ground”. Maybe the burn mechanism isnt designed very well for a state of limited usage of the network and should be adopted accordingly.
Maybe there should be a Bonus/incentive paid to a neuron if they Automatically Stake Maturity. A separate bonus in addition to the magic of compound interest. I think that would encourage locking up more ICP from a neuron holder perspective.
Why would that be useful ?
Or maybe its designed very well and ICP has simply not reached the intended society penetration. Someone told you burning is a target by itself ?
Good idea, they should create a bonus/incentive using the neuron rewards. To make it fair, it should be taken from the people FUDding and send it directly to Devs.
- If you want a chain whose target is to burn, there are 2000+ other bs choices for you.
- If you do not understand what is Dfinity’s target with ICP, its time to get educated.
So what you are saying everything is fine, it’s all according to plan ?
I mean, yes basically it is all going according to plan. More ICP gets minted, the platform grows, and eventually so many cycles are burned it could become deflationary. I don’t think anything has changed in that regard since genesis.
I believe you but it really doesn’t look good for outsiders and pretty hard to pick a fight with that right now.
Yeah Lefteris, good guy, I’ve worked with him in the past. Hasn’t got the slightest clue about the IC though. Looks like that’ll only start to change when the price goes up.
That was just one recent example. Also if you could tell someone to edit the official how to stake video from the Dfinity Youtube channel @ min 4 would be awesome. Very confusing to new people the 6 month can’t vote and even new videos still spread the same thing.
What if, a portion of all np fees was directed into cycles and then distributed among canisters. Like, a small portion, .03 of all fees
What about that.
It’s challenging to sympathize with seed investors who got in at a mere $0.03 and even 28% APY (100K+ ICP …i could be wrong).They would have already recovered their initial investment a while ago simply through daily rewards, and by now, they’d likely be enjoying substantial profits.
Meanwhile, some of us started buying and locking in at $500, consistently dollar-cost averaging. Finally, after significant investments during each price drop, I’ve managed to bring my average buying price down to $4.01.
It wouldn’t surprise me if ICP dips below $2. However, as long as I sense positive progression from @dfinity and the community, I’m prepared to dollar-cost average again. With a total investment in the lower six figures, I have a strong conviction in the concept and have funds to invest in projects that resonate with my beliefs.
The seed investors played a crucial role in the project’s inception, and given the high risk they took with little proof of concept, it’s entirely justified that they received substantial rewards. However, their complaints now, in light of the hardships the retail investors have undergone, strike me as somewhat amusing.
If the Internet Computer project fails, I’d be more disappointed about the missed opportunities for mainstream adoption of 100÷ on-chain web3 than the loss of money, which I’m confident I can recoup through other means.
I can’t believe with all the big brains we have at icp there isn’t any immediate initiatives to increase the ICs burn rate
Allow instant unlocks and burn a portion of the icp correlated to staked length ( this makes sense as there is already neuron markets, which do not benefit anyone - no icp burnt )
Increase tx fees
Implement GPU technology so we can directly access them to utilise LLms on the IC ( use this process to burn more icp )
I’m sure there’s much more that could be done right now…
Why wouldnt it be a target when its part of how the ecosystem works. If only one side works (inflation) and the other side (deflation) doesnt, the whole system may have a desing flaw. I thought that must be obvious to all, apparently its not. Someone told me there is a lot of newbies in the ICP ecosystem.
Besides encouraging more dAPPS, which the DFINITY team is doing, perhaps it would be worthwhile that they consider ways to modify the current token economic model so that the amount of tokens does not grow so much, and the price of ICP starts to appreciate.
@dominicwilliams may have some insights to this
Couldn’t resist trying to lift this topic a little.
Of course inflation is front and centre, given the “high prices crisis” <= my new favourite term, but whole numbers are not a good way to measure this. The circ. supply 1 year ago was about 483,700,000 so the increase (in % terms) is not huge.
I agree that the tokenomics in ICP are not that typical for projects, which usually like to have more responsive/short term measures that can affect supply (e.g. ETH). In setting this up, Dfinity is playing the long game, and one that is tied to real world metrics of utility, namely computation.
Personally I am in favour of this approach, as it puts less emphasis on short-term thinking (also reflected in 8-year locking), but I do recognise that this puts a greater burden on the team to create incentives that are not bound to short-term speculative wins. One such effort is the $200MM allocated for fueling development. More could be done.
We are used to lobbying for and expecting systematic changes because the system isn’t working for us. Again, if you look at the long-term dynamics, the low price is actually to your advantage, since canisters are cheap to create and run and, if you are into DCA, you can put together a decent nest egg.
Lobbying for change implicitly passes authority to a central organisation, and is a valid approach but, as others has said, an alternative is to make amazing things that require computation (ideally lots of it) that people are willing to pay for.
I am personally working on a strategy for this and am looking forward to presenting my wp to dfinity and investors pretty soon. It’s linked to the upcoming open-source ICVR framework.
Not sure where you get your data from but it’s wrong.
The CYCLES that power the canisters has nothing to do with the price of ICP .
The USD cost for transactions below is based on the above cycle costs. 1 XDR is equal to 1 Trillion cycles. As of November 23, 2022, the exchange rate for 1 XDR = $1.308860, which is used on this page. The exchange rate for USD/XDR may vary and it will impact the conversion rate.
One, typically, buys cycles through ICP. To acquire 1T cycles requires 1 XDR (~$1.309). If 1 ICP = $4, you can get 3.06T cycles. If 1 ICP = $100, you can get 76.5T cycles for the same 1 ICP.
He was talking about low price, even if ICP falls to $0.5 you still need same amount of ~$1.3 . So again the price of ICP does not affect the price of CYCLES you need for canisters. If anything the reverse effect is applied here the higher one ICP gets the more you can buy so one may say it will be cheaper then.