Is there somewhere where one can see the average data being used by a given II and how I want to know how I can better understand the tokenomics of ICP and I want to know the average users impact on the network. Let me know how this can be found. Thanks!
Do you mean the average amount of data in the II canister per user? Or the average amount of data across the network per user?
If it’s the latter, then that’s not possible. II by design is creating new principals for every application that a user logs into so you cannot link the same user across multiple apps together.
I meant the second but I understand why that’s not possible with your explanation. I was having a discussion with someone about the recent price action and they were stating that need for cycles from devs has not significantly increased and that a more reasonable explanation for the recent surge is speculation. That seems plausible and it lead me to thinking about how much data the average II uses on the IC and how that translates to cycles because while cycles are a currency for devs to mainly use for canisters another demographic that plays into the IC ecosystem and tokenomics is the general public through this gas model fee. I’m looking to become a known neuron and I’m having a bit of a hard time interpreting all the aspects of the ICP tokenomics and how everything connects. If you’d be able to provide me with some links or tools to help me learn I’d appreciate it!
You can find some interesting metrics here: https://icp.deliacapital.com
2 Likes
It’s probably a silly question, but do you mean people speculate on the price of ICP because more cycles will be burned if there are more users, or do they speculate just to buy cycles?
I’m curious to understand this, especially since cycles have a fixed price in XDR to make canister costs predictable and independent of the ICP price.
1 Like
Hey there, it looks like you might be approaching ICP tokenomics from a bit of a different angle.
The current ICP tokenomic mechanism isn’t designed to be sensitive to the demand for cycles. Instead, it’s more attuned to the demand for governance participation, especially among serious enthusiasts, and the demand to participate in SNS projects.
So, I’d suggest starting from there to get a better grasp of what’s going on.
1 Like
No more so I’m saying (or rather the person I was speaking with was saying) that the recent price surge is due to speculation of ICP as a whole, not necessarily because of cycles itself.
1 Like
Thank you for this! I’ll check it out!
I do understand that governance plays a significant role in ICP tokenomics through the minting of ICP in rewards but wouldn’t the opposite side of this be the demand of cycles causing the burning of ICP? It’s the only way I know of that this happens That would make the demand for cycles the second biggest factor imo. Or perhaps the third behind the actual act of locking up ICP to get rewards in the first place but still it has a significant impact on token price and subsequently the sustainability of the network itself. I’ve seen a couple people across different posts here in the forums, who I believe know more than me as Known Neurons, criticize the current tokenomics stating that things such as the (supposedly) rampant onboarding of node providers last year, lack of activity from some or most SNS projects, and currently inflationary status of ICP due to rewards could potentially mean unsustainability in the future if not addressed. I’m looking for data to come to my own conclusions on this. Sorry if that was a lot but I’m just trying to provide context while replying to what you said. Hope it makes sense.
1 Like
I totally get you, as I had a similar line of thinking when delving into ICP tokenomics. The idea that cycles burning could balance out cycles minting for a deflationary effect seemed the most logical. However, achieving that deflation will require consistent burning of quadrillions of cycles, which is nearly impossible, especially in the short to mid term.
The interesting part is that the architects behind ICP tokenomics haven’t spilled the beans on the design logic. It’s kind of a mystery. I’ve actually shared my take on it in this forum thread, and you might find it interesting to dive into the discussion there: Thoughts on Governance and Cycles.
My unconventional hypothesis is that the sensitivity of ICP’s price is more closely linked to governance participation and the demand for SNS projects rather than cycles burning. The potential catalyst for an ICP bull run lies in the moment mainstream institutions recognize and decide to engage in ICP governance, outweighing the impact of the demand for cycles.