Increasing Decentralization & Reducing ICP Inflation with a Single Proposal

[diegop]

@Semence2Porc

I see that sometimes one increase while the other decrease. Is it due to some kind of proposals that were voted to adjust. Or is there another reason/mechanism?

Sorry if those are newbie’s question.

Good question, i cannot speak in specific to these months, but I will say node and voting ICP have two very different mechanisms so they dont always align.

1. Voting ICP is based on an inflation function = There is a fixed % of ICP that gets minted every year and that % is divided among voters.

2. Node provider ICP = node providers get ansomewhat fixed amount of XDR (a virtual currency). To keep it simple: node providers get enough ICP to meet a X amount of a currency called XDR. If ICP market price goes up, the NNS needs to mint less ICP to meet XDR amount. If ICP market price goes down, the NNS needs more ICP to meet the XDR amount.

[diegop]

@Semence2Porc

I had read a few month (or was it years ago), that the more nodes we add to the network, the more ICP will get minted

This is true. The more nodes, each node gets remunerated.

[gatsby_esp]

Stake rewards should be aligned with the ICP growth.
This is obvious for any company or any economy.
Income can not be higher than revenue. Otherwise you’ll spiral to death.
Neuron investors need to understand that their greediness is gonna be the death of the whole exosystem.

[diegop]

Moderator note:

@Phasma community flagged your comment and i removed it because complaining about admin moderation is off-topic, and I generally have less patience for things that are off-topic these days. Please comment on the actual topic or refrain from actual commenting.

[diegop]

Moderator note:

@catpirate3 @gatsby_esp @Kick1776 There is nothing wrong with your individual comments, but I am afraid the last batch of comments is going off topic and ive seen other threads similarly de evovle.

I ask we please stick to the topic at hand. Thank you.

[ckMood]

@gatsby_esp

Neuron investors need to understand that their greediness is gonna be the death of the whole exosystem.

I think it is disingenuous to say that neuron investors are greedy.

[diegop]

Moderator note:

@catpirate3 i removed various of your posts because despite my warnings, you keep posting things off topic.

More so, I will concede one point:

1. You are welcome to disagree with my moderating.

2. As I have told you before, you are more than welcome to make a POST or THREAD on it. Yet you keep hijacking’s other threads. comments are usually removed because they are off topic as commonly as they are for being ad hominem.you can make a thread about moderating rules.

3. You can also not engage. If you do not like this forum. You can go to other many forums. Please do not come to our public space (which we take pains to clean up) and then critique in a non helpful manner by hijacking threads.

Please consider this an official warning

[catpirate3]

So let me get this straight,

1. You fail to answer all of my questions from a single post which was related to your previous post
2. You censor my “off-topic” post but not Wenzel’s
3. And yet again you’re here threatening me? Instead of answering this

@catpirate3

I don’t understand the logic behind this. You say you are admins of the forum where we discuss the network governance, which also implies that you are the administrators of governance. Did I get this wrong?

As per my understanding and facts I’ve come across, DFINITY is the major stakeholder and “contributor” to this network. Are we not allowed to criticize the stakeholders in a proof of sake governance system?

This gives of communist vibes to be honest where the thought police are policing people on what they can say and what they cannot. When you say “community flags”, its the most hypocritical thing ever. For one, its not a transparent process and how do we know that DFINITY and its affiliates are not gaming this system?

You want to have decentralization but not free speech to get there. Tell me again @diegop how can we discuss decentralization when you remove and censor content in this forums that goes against the official narrative of DFINITY foundation?

The purpose of this topic is “increasing decentralization” / “sparking decentralization”, so why are my posts exactly off topic? @diegop Your posts sound like ad hominem, if anything else. Attacking the person instead of addressing the argument. Who’s gonna moderate your posts?

You just proved this

@catpirate3

I can only assume that you do not want people to discuss certain things which are relevant to the Internet Computer and its growth.

This is what we get when we discuss decentralization on a centralized forums? a state of pseudo-decentralization.

also you quietly removed this topic?

I don’t see any complaints from author of this topic, why are you and wenzel censoring me here? seems like you have something personal against me

[diegop]

I will leave the comment above, but I will iterate on my approach:

1. I have now deleted all comments that were off topic even the ones from you i had let slide as well as by any other users that were off topic (I have a feeling they wont care as much as you do).

2. Yes i saw your question, but i was not really in a mood to answer it. This is a forum for discussion, not a chatbot. I will try to be helpful when I can, but I was genuinely turned off by the tone of your question. Not as an admin, but as a user. If you want me (or anyone) to participate in a dialogue, I would suggest changing your approach.

[diegop]

please note @catpirate3 this your comment above is snarky and unhelpful and I hesitate to hijack this thread with more off-topic comments, so i will do this:

1. I will leave your comment above as written evidence of your bad faith which can become part of the long chain of bad faith comments you have written.

2. I will warn you any more comments not related to the original comment will be deleted and I will silence your user profile. You have been warned.

[diegop]

@zkcrypto_real

Funny how the moderators here let this sit here without warning wenzel or removing the post

This actually not strictly true but there is a kernel of truth to it.

In removing many off topic comments, I did accidentally leave comments by Wentsel, but also 3 other users.

Thank you for reminding me. I have now removed an additional dozen comments.

Including yours @zkcrypto_real . Like I said… I will remove off topic comments more strictly with this thread.

[lara]

Hi all,

Thanks to everyone who contributed valuable input and feedback to this thread.

We had a few productive conversations with folks from DFINITY in the last couple of weeks discussing periodic confirmation as well as related topics and how they fit together. Today, I would like to summarize DFINITY’s view on periodic confirmation and a proposed way forward on how to combine it with other features on the NNS roadmap as a step towards more voting participation and decentralization.

Periodic confirmation

Different motivations for periodic confirmation have been discussed.

We agree with others that for the originally proposed reduction of spam proposals, periodic confirmation is not needed anymore. We also agree that the reduced voting reward inflation is a likely side-effect of the feature. However, we think this should not be the main goal, as in a perfect governance system as many neurons as possible should participate in governance - in which case the reduction in inflation would be low.

In our view, the main advantages of periodic confirmation are the following.

1. The default following is reset and thus every neuron would have to make at least once a conscious decision who to follow.
2. Followers are incentivised to regularly reconsider their choice and therefore be more likely to change their following to a more diverse set of neurons. This is contributing to the high level goal of a more active and decentralized NNS.

To address the first point, it was proposed to do a soft reset in the form of a new DFINITY voting neuron. The community does not seem to be in favor of replacing periodic confirmation by a new DFINITY voting neuron. We therefore propose to implement periodic confirmation with the goal of increasing governance participation and decentralization.

Higher level goal

As pointed out by many in this discussion, periodic confirmation alone will likely not lead to further decentralization of the NNS. For a more decentralized NNS it is also required that there are more alternative neurons who are directly voting and can be followed. Therefore, we propose the following combination of features, which seems to be in accordance with many opinions raised in this discussion:

1. Periodic confirmation of following in order to incentivise followers to be more active and follow a more diverse set of followees.

2. Incentives for actively voting neurons to motivate more neurons to spend time verifying and directly voting on proposals to become experts that can be followed by others.

Proposed next steps

We propose the following next steps for working towards the two sub-goals.

• Periodic confirmation. The high level idea was approved by the community in proposal [55651](https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/55651). Some details still need to be clarified, for example how this can be implemented in a user-friendly way that gives users enough time to act. There are already a lot of ideas how this could be done and we will start working on putting those together into a concrete design in the coming weeks. We then plan to share a concrete proposal on the forum in a new post.

• Incentives for actively voting neurons. From this thread, it seems that a lot of community members agree that incentivising voting neurons is a feature that should be explored. The ultimate solution for this problem should be built into the NNS and be independent of any centralized party. As the solution space is large and our resources are limited, we expect that it will still take a few weeks until we can share one or multiple concrete proposal(s). However, we are also considering a more pragmatic short-term solution that could be used to already incentivise a few known neurons to get familiar with the process and start voting while the longer-term design is worked out. We are actively discussing this at the moment and plan to share it in a new forum post within the next two weeks.

Even though a lot of this is still under work, we hope it is helpful that we share our current view and the high level plan that we aim at. We look forward to sharing more concrete designs soon and are welcoming your feedback as always!

[wpb]

This is very exciting @lara. Thank you! I look forward to your next posts on these topics.

[justmythoughts]

Thanks to the DFINITY team and all participants that contributed constructive ideas to this thread. A real community effort!

Looking forward to the proposal. @lara Is the team looking for additional input/optionality on that idea, or do they plan to put forth a complete single proposal in the forum post?

[LightningLad91]

Thank you this is truly great news! Very happy to see DF come to this conclusion based on community feedback .

[Ajki]

Consider also giving neurons that vote manually a portion of the rewards from their followees (if they have them).

It should be noted that many, including myself, have set neurons to follow, but in most cases, I vote manually and follow certain neurons as a backup option in case I do not vote manually.

[lara]

Thanks to the DFINITY team and all participants that contributed constructive ideas to this thread. A real community effort!

Fully agree with this!

@lara Is the team looking for additional input/optionality on that idea, or do they plan to put forth a complete single proposal in the forum post?

Thanks a lot for asking! As there are already a lot of ideas around, in my view the most effective next step is defining one (or multiple) more concrete end-to-end design(s) based on these ideas and then bring this to community discussion. This is what we plan to do and for this I don’t think we need more input at the moment.
We then have something concrete based on which we can better discuss pros/cons and which parts could potentially be adjusted etc.

But if you think you have ideas that would be too late to share in the later discussion, you are of course always welcome to share them.

[lara]

Consider also giving neurons that vote manually a portion of the rewards from their followees (if they have them).

As this has been mentioned a few times, I am sure this is an option that we have in mind for the long-term solution for “Incentives for actively voting neurons”.

[lastmjs]

This is very exciting news, congratulations to all in the community who have ever given their time and voice pushing in this direction.

[MillionMiles]

strong support this proposal