- saying there’s no skin in the game just isn’t true and I’ve explained this above… if you buy a neuron you are still paying liquid ICP for locked ICP and therefore have skin in the game! So either you don’t understand how the market will work or you’re being disingenuous…
I haven’t ever said that the new owner doesn’t have skin in the game(Although if the second owner also has an out then they have less skin in the game than an owner who has no out). I’ve argued that the previous owner has a pathway to less skin in the game than would have otherwise been there and that requiring maximum skin in the game by everyone leads to better long-term collective wisdom of the crowd decisions making.
- saying that tradable neurons is bad is an opinion unless you can demonstrate with evidence…and you can’t! And in my opinion trying to steal people’s staking/voting rewards IS bad for this chain.
Damn it mechquan…you’re going to make me write an agent-based model that demonstrates that I’m right. I think you’re being obtuse as I don’t think that this a hard concept to grasp if the idea of governance has any merit whatsoever(and if it doesn’t, fine…lets manage the network differently…but a different debate).
In the meantime, here are some psychological papers that demonstrate how longer-term time horizons lead to better decision-making:
I particularly love this one “Tying Odysseus to the Mast”… which demonstrates an 81% performance improvement for commiters: https://ashrafnava.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tyingodysseus_qje.pdf
There is an entire field of study on this called “Commitment Devices.”
If these aren’t enough evidence for you I’ll try to argue from the absurd side by saying that if we don’t think that long-term time commitments to outcomes are effective, then what the hell are we even doing here? If we do think they are effective, then there is some asymptote that is approached as the time commitment increases. If you offer an out, you are picking a place further away from the potential maximum.
Do we want to be on the left side of this graph?
why are you still talking about immutability?! Your views on immutability are irrelevant and apparently mutable! Immutable neuron ownership seems be the only thing you believe it…even though you’re completely fine with changing the “contract” terms under which people stake.
I’ve ceded that we should make any changes on a go-forward basis(unless there is an imminent short-term threat). If I could go back to the recalc of rewards I’d propose that it only affect future neurons and/or offer all neurons an unlock. Norms are important and I did not expect the blowback that a vocal corner of the community had. You guys make some good points and I think going forward we should be more thoughtful on how changes are rolled out.
If we add something like a zk signature of consistent personhood in the future, I’d propose that it only apply to future neurons and/or future staked maturity.