This was inspired by a recent post. This topic is worth discussing before the network gains more traction and I’d be interested to hear from Dfinity and other community members on what alternative models might look like.
From my perspective, a 6-month neuron shouldn’t be receiving 53% of the VP/R of a 96-month neuron. We should work to rebalance the system and appropriately reward participants.
2: An alternative model
There are a few changes I’d like to explore…
Lower minimum dissolve delay bonus
Change the dissolve delay bonus formula so 6-month neurons receive no more than 3-4% ARR (whatever the community deems reasonable).
Non-linear scaling
Adjust the dissolve delay bonus formula to scale the VP/R ramp in a non-linear fashion. Neurons below a certain threshold would receive less VP/R, neurons above that threshold would receive equivalent or slightly more VP/R. The model would ideally always incentivize long-term DD staking.
3: Additional comments
Reducing overall inflation
Lowering the minimum dissolve delay bonus would produce a surplus of voting rewards. To handle this, the annual allocation rate would be lowered to make up the difference. This would reduce YOY inflation. Surplus voting rewards shouldn’t flow up the reward curve except in the case fine-tuning is needed. We should lower inflation at every available opportunity.
Lets fix Daily Maturity to 44000, 8 year stakers will get 75% of it, the rest 25% will be divided equally from 0.6-7.5 year stakers.
Result is that we have 20% less inflation, price goes up 20%, 8 year neurons still get same USD amount of ICP.
I hope this makes sense, i belive this is the best option.
For your information : Few years ago, we had proportional reward and voting system, there was no issues, exept some people want to diminish/redirect the 8 year stacker power for them, creating change in tokenomics. Not at all coincidentally all ICP VC had neuron dissolving with low dissolve delay and it gave them much more reward than they were supposed to get just before they dumped all on you.
Its obvious how interested those proposal were.
Btw Inflation is also certainly not an issue.
We should just
ANYONE MAKING A TOKENOMICS CHANGE NOT ALLOWING THE CURRENT NEURON TO DISSOLVE INSTANTLY ( POP OUT ) ARE CONSCIOUSLY OR INCONSCIOUSLY TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM.
TO ANYONE THINKING HE IS A TOKENOMICS GENIUS, WILL YOU ALLOW THAT IN YOUR PROPOSAL ? YOU ARE EFFRAID THEY PREFER DISSOLVING RIGHT ? EFFRAID IT ADDS INFLATION ?
Are you sure? Right now maturity 50000 a day, its expected it to go back to 90000 a day like it was 3 months ago. 90000 at 5 usd is 450000 USD printed as maturity each day. People want ICP to go 100 usd and get it as floor price, but than 9 mil usd is added to maturity every day, not sustainable.
As i understand, if another 100 mil tokens are staked, daily maturity can increase to 135000 (5usd=675k, 20usd=2.7mil, 100usd=13.5mil).
Right now reward system is fine, if no one want ICP to reach or stay over 100 usd.
Answer the following question : is the current circulating supply increasing or decreasing ? This is what inflation is, and motivating people to stack 8 years is the best way to keep them stacking and NOT selling.
What you want to do is to reduce their reward artificially AND asking them to keep their neuron ( LOOOOOOOOOOOOL YOU SEE HOW HYPOCRITICAL THAT IS !!! )
Do any tokenomics change you want but allow the current people stacked to unstack. You will see what happens in your loved circulating supply / inflation. Guess what ?! You are suggesting unfair changes and THEY WILL THROW THE PRICE TO ABBYS