Hey Matt, that’s not correct, everyone who has locked $WTN can vote on the NNS proposals, illustrated below:
Locked governance token holders choose what to vote for!
1 Like
To my understanding, the $WTN tokens won’t available to be locked nor voted upon for quite a while. Is that correct?
This is a statement from your website.
WTN will be distributed to nICP users following the tiers described below. A total of 4.48M WTN will be distributed to nICP stakers. The airdrop will be claimable once every WTN has been allocated, meaning a total of 10M ICP has been deposited into the protocol.
How many “era’s” will that be, assuming you don’t get funding from the neurons fund? Who will be in charge of the voting in the meantime?
I did not realise this had moved threads so I’ll post my concerns on the new thread.
No I think you might be confused, there’s the SNS and the airdrop, those are two separate things! The $WTN distribution is as follow:
The protocol is a DAO from day 1, and as such is governed by locked $WTN right from the start!
1 Like
Right, so what is the breakdown of WTN to the community from day 1?
I can’t find that on your website. Could you send the link please?
Are you expecting the neuron fund to be involved in this?
2 Likes
The link is docs.waterneuron.fi! Regarding the SNS process you should check-out the other thread on the forum - here.
1 Like
So what is the voting breakdown?
Ie how are you able to say “we will vote no on all topics” (I understand that has changed), but regardless, how can you say this is how we will vote, isn’t that up to the community with staked WTN?
Are you expecting the neurons fund to participate?
Exactly, each NNS proposal will be cloned on the SNS. Staked $WTN vote, and whatever they vote all the $ICP staked on the protocol will follow their decision!
There is Neuron’s Fund participation in the sns parameters. However whether they participate is up to the Neuron’s Fund to decide!
You’re talking about the ICP community with staked ICP voting on an ICP proposal on the NNS yes?
But what is the breakdown of voting power of WTN tokens available to be staked for the community following the launch? Ie how decentralized is WTN if you’re able to specify what the vote will be.
this project is simply dangerous for ICP and at the same time unnecessary - introducing liquid tokens that are intended to serve an unknown purpose has not been proven anywhere - it only serves its creator, who still holds hard currency (ICP). I hope this doesn’t go through, let’s stick to ICP.
[image]
1 Like
Super agreed with M4KiNs what’s the actually real world application of this? having my token controlled by you guys is not something that I am willing to take the risk. the only problem a see is like what are the mechanisms in place to prove that a rug pull won’t be possible?
I was removed from their Telegram group without any explanation or reason. Therefore, I wouldn’t trust these guys to control 10% of the ICP supply. Plus, we already have stakeGeek https://stakegeek.app/
StakeGeek currently hoards voting power from those who stake their ICP. They explicitly have no solution for the governance problem that liquid staking creates.
WaterNeuron on the other hand tackles that problem by separating nICP from WTN. Both of these tokens fulfill a clear purpose:
- nICP: allows staked ICP to change hands, so that it doesn’t stagnate, and instead can contribute productively to a flowing economy
- WTN: solves the governance problem that would otherwise be created by nICP, by distributing voting power among a broad set of people with a long-term commitment (WTN holders who have staked WTN)
I’m baffled by individuals who see WaterNeuron as dangerous, yet promote StakeGeek (it’s surely the other way around) 
Another interesting element of WaterNeuron is the type of people that it incentivises to take part. Those who think long-term and can crunch numbers (10% yield which grows in absolute terms, split between a fixed number of WTN tokens) should see the opportunity that the WTN token represents. I believe long-term, critical thinkers are probably the kind of people you’d want to decentralise voting power to for weighing in on complex technical topics.
At the same time, those who operate more with the here and now, jumping in and out of positions, are probably less likely to be the type of individuals that are best postioned for evaluating the long-term implications of governance decisions (and the outcomes of their votes). If their stake is liquid, they certainly aren’t the type of indivuals you’d want casting a vote (given that they can jump ship at any time). They’re not bound to the outcomes of their decisions. I find it interesting that unlike WTN, the rewards from nICP are front-loaded, appealing to short-term, reactive thinkers. That’s not to say that there aren’t long-term benefits to holding nICP, but WTN holders win big time in this respect (they just have to be willing to stake for the long term)
7 Likes
So far, idGeek hasn’t tried to raise ICP from the community to control hundred of times more ICP. That approach feels more humble and just focused on helping users.
What do you think is happening when you stake your ICP with StakeGeek?
2 Likes