Dear @lmuntaner,
I hope this message finds you well.
As 7 months have passed since the integration of ICP within Ledger Live (LL), I am curious about any step forward about this question back then. Of course, I understand that it may not be a priority given the context, but it is just to follow the process up.
In the case where none step forward has been made in the meanwhile, I would like to share with you an interpretation of the situation and an idea to ease not only this local process, but also a more global one.
A reason of the lack of zeal of Ledger to support the neurons and their functions in LL could be : the lack of incentive for having a neuron followed by neurons, even if it is a named one.
As I see it, they would be prompter to achieve such an integration if followed neurons were having a percentage of their followers’ voting rewards, because Ledger would probably create their own named neuron (the Ledger Named Neuron), hoping people create neurons and configure them to follow their own directly from LL. I can see and I want a future in which all sorts of entities would have their own named neurons (companies, non-profit association, etc.) with their own voting policies. But for this, they will need an incentive to do it. And currently, there is none.
ICP is the only top rank chain where participants can delegate their votes to actors without having to pay any fee to their followees for the service they firstly expect from them : assure their own rewards for themselves. But in the mean time, people are paying without having any reluctancy 10%-20% of fees on other major chains for delegating their stake.
Until now, everybody has considered perfectly normal that followees perform their volunteer task of monitoring and involving at least in Governance/SNS topics and sometimes more (e.g. Codegov with replicas) whereas the followers could technically perform the vote for themselves, unlike to other networks where receiving directly rewards would suppose they have hardware capacities.
Indeed, this volunteering is so hard to believe that, from time to time, we can see here and there some conspiracy theories about Dfinity allegedly funding some named neurons (funding Synapse neuron, to not name ourselves).
This idiosyncrasy of ICP consisting in free delegating is problematic, because in reality nothing is free : the fees not payed by the followers are just paid by someone else : by their followees who pay by providing free work. Given this, at the end of the day, the simple followers are more rewarded than followees. And to tell to named neurons that they do have an interest in performing their activity because by easing the success of the network they will grow their bag’s value is an absurdity as much for the psychology as for the game theory. Why some actors would perform this teleological free work rather than imitating the ones receiving the same rewards by basically doing nothing ? Non sense. Indeed, it is just the opposite : since 3 years, the only reason for being a followee is not intellectual or pragmatical, but just a passion : the love of the network, and “l’amour rend aveugle”.
But if we take a look on the big picture, we want a sustainable model of governance, with named neurons of all sorts of actors, like Ledger. We want a future in which Dfinity can be followed on all the topics of vote (even governance and SNSs), because there would be so much actors, that Dfinity would not be accused of centralization, but would be a balancing force.
To summarize : I see such a slowness of Ledger’s integration as an illustration of the lack of incentive for followees, and such an incentive could participate to a powerful growth of the network.