Mission 70 is now here

Developers
, ,
22

I agree. I like the first half of the whitepaper for the most part.

The demand side is a mixed bag of what-ifs, hopes and projections about the cycle burn rate and a passing mention of the months when a memecoin single-handedly carried the CBR past the deflationary threshold - nothing sustainable long-term.

And yet another wowza concept comes into the fray, cloud engines. Sounds good in theory though it looks like we’re pivoting every other month to something new and we gotta coin a term for it - feels a bit carrot-on-a-stick-y.

Looking forward to mission70 kicking off.

23

Dom said it himself. Financial engeneering will get us so far. Adoption is where it’s at.

24

The node providers are still issuing more ICPs based on the U standard, that hasn’t changed at all, right?

25

Yep, which sucks. And without 8 years staking, I’d assume there will be more dumps than before, which could bring the ICP price down further, and node providers would get more ICP. That doesn’t really help bringing down the inflation at all.

26

This new white paper is a clown show.

Spoiler : Here is the situation

  • Whales have too much liquid ICP to be able to sell without crashing the price more ( they did 99% so far ! ) and this include Dfinity and the 100M maturity position.
  • ICP token has no adoption
  • Need short term narrative for hoping to get artificial token pump to sell more
  • Dividing rewards by 2 wont change anything to them since they have so much and already cant sell anyway. But this certainly change the reward for retail that could sell their small amount without crashing the price. So its comparatively MUCH BETTER for whales.

Thank you for participating inthe new season of - scam retail 2.0

27

If I read right, everyone dissolving now and with over 2 years remaining will be 2 years, all the same. My 6 years remaining dissolving will be 2 years just like everybody else dissolving. This mean they give themselves 2 years to unload their bags knowing in 2 years, all of us, will sell and this will be the end. Notice the timing. This proposal arrive only few months after all vc Unlock which were 4 years for the last one, June 2025.

If they want to cut by 4 (8 years to 2), they should cut the 6 years to1.5 years, 4 years to 1, and so on. That 2 years for everyone is telling everything we need to know.

28

This white paper is a masterclass in optimistic financial projections. It asks stakers to accept certain, immediate income reductions in exchange for uncertain, delayed revenue growth based on products that don’t exist yet, serving customers who haven’t signed yet, in markets that haven’t proven demand yet.

The supply-side math is rigorous and detailed. The demand-side math is hand-waving and hope. That asymmetry should concern every staker voting on this proposal.

I want ICP to succeed. But success requires honest accounting, not optimistic scenarios presented as inevitable outcomes. Show me the customers. Show me the burn rate trajectory. Show me the accountability mechanisms. Then we can talk about cutting my staking rewards by 36%.

29

THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PROPOSAL EVER AND EVERYONE SHOULD MANUALLY VOTE ON THIS!

PLEASE VOTE “NO” TO “MISSION 70” as currently proposed!

Here’s a better proposal:

  1. Allow all current stakers the option to opt-in to the new staking terms and periods if they wish to do so otherwise their current terms remain. Give everyone an unlimited time option to do so. If they are willing to take this reduction in APR in exchange for reducing to a 2 year neuron, allow them to decide whenever they’re ready to.

  2. Only require the new terms for new stakers

  3. I agree that node providers should be incentivized to upgrade their hardware from gen 1.

As currently written, I DO NOT agree with the motion and I urge all long term stakers to vote “NO” and it’s not because I’m being selfish here not wanting this project to succeed. It’s because it just buys time and nothing more. It will not fix the major problem here which as we all know is USAGE AND ADOPTION. In fact, it may cause more problems than it fixes! DOM AND DFINITY have been given plenty of time due to us long term stakers and this is a horrible message. If the VC’s are behind this, shame on them!

Which means, it does not solve the main problem. The main problem is a business problem. DFINITY and DOM were completely focused on the tech and development but now that there’s a pivot, they need to start showing us some significant results in the onboarding department which means fixing the poor PR, SALES, SALES, AND MORE SALES, MARKETING, “PAY TO PLAY”, interviews, publicity, etc. and doing whatever is necessary to put ICP on the map once and for all!

If we allow them to fleece us this way, it will just kick the can further down the road and we’ll be in the same position again with them asking for a further reduction!

Meanwhile, anyone who bought in the double digits or higher is already receiving effectively reduced APR on their initial investments!

For example, if you bought ICP at an average of $13, you are not receiving 14%. You are already receiving 3% because you are down by 75%. So now to add insult to injury, you’ll get another 50% reduction in rewards and go down to 1.5%! Might as well be 0! If everyone bought at the lows here at 2 - 3 bucks, that’d be a different story but this is INSULTING to say the least!

AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER that ICP appreciates in price! WHATSOEVER! There are still plenty of people shorting ICP all day long because of the lack of adoption and usage which they wouldn’t be doing otherwise!

Also, as @Thairap mentioned, not solving for ADOPTION and now eliminating the 8 year gang cushion could be catastrophic and not lead to the results intended but the opposite!

VOTE NO UNTIL THIS IS PROPERLY CHANGED!

30

Right so you don’t want inflation changed because your personal APY get lowered.

Great stuff.

31

Wrong. I stated that I’m for lowering APR’s and periods for new stakers or those who opt-in to the new terms.

That’s fine but changing terms on current stakers doesn’t solve the main problem but instead kicks the can further down the road.

What it does is appease those who are not staked and don’t have to wait years to get their capital back and can just pump and dump on all of us in the meantime.

There is no guarantee of price appreciation here without adoption.

The network needs to make money to pay the bills, correct?

This lowers expenses but still doesn’t pay the bills as designed and as promised to everyone who invested here. Temporarily axe 80% of the node providers instead until you have enough network demand instead of punishing the people who funded you!

32

I vote Yes because i dont want YOUR bag to go 0, simple as that. With new change, just unlock your bag that you bought at 13usd, wait 2 years and sell.

I never unstake my bag, no matter what changes come in future.

33

I don’t know wat you are talking about. Lowering the inflation objectively increases the intrinsic value. I know you don’t think about such complex topics but, just saying. Also the cloud engines bring another burn mechanism to the equation.

Talking about who owns how many liquid tokens doesn’t change the value of the token.

34

Overall I like the whitepaper and the changes Dfinity has recommended. Adoption remains to be seen but we have all place our bets that it will come and I believe at some point it will..

35
36

Do you know more about cloud engines as what is written in the white paper? In my understanding it sort of covers similar requirements as UTOPIA. Am I wrong?

37

I personally think the cloud engines will be a stroke of genius in GTM and will 100% appeal to institutions. I’m super looking forward for more details and it does shift the burden of execution into a decentralized mannner which I love and it be will be efficient. Bear in mind also the 2 weeks staking is very smart psychologically because most people are not venture risk takers ie 8 years gang(locking in 8 year neuron is akin of investing your money in a 10 year VC fund) this is brilliant from a game theory perspective.

We need more information for sure on cloud engines and please do make payments in fiat, in the backend burn ICP because institutions can’t convince stakeholders of the balance sheet risk.

38

Utopia is different. Cloud Engines will be on the public ICP network burning ICP. I think the closest thing to it at the moment are rented subnets. The focus on Cloud Engines shows the foundation’s plans to lean in to a model that more closely resembles rented subnets today.

Changes that I think relate to this include the ability to run nodes on traditional cloud infrastructure. That would make it significantly easier to spin up and down nodes without needing lengthy data center contracts.

39

Here’s my 2 cents…

I don’t fucking care any more. I’m going to do my own mission 70 - 70 strong beers, one man, one week. Enjoy your VC corp chain.

40

Cry more. They reduced your 100x returns to 80x returns.

41

Exactly, now the Node Providers get more ICP as the price is at its lows and take into considerations that lots of good Alts are at their lows, not just ICP. As the price will go Node Providers will get less and less ICP as the price will certainly be above 20-30$/ICP. That is a simple principle and it will work.

But @DFINITYTeamMembers wants to make changes in how nodes work and create a more competitive environment for Node Providers so probably it is the job of node providers to argue here weather they like it or not. I don’t see node node providers here saying anything, that is dubious!

I consider the Node Rewards proposal should be separated from the Staking Rewards proposal and the community should vote separately on these two. Let the Node Providers decide what is good for them as they understand the best.

Me as a 8YG staker i understand best what is good for securing the network and having a decent yield and i don’t agree with the current proposal. It is a problem of delivering economic value, increasing the network and creating new opportunities for the ecosystem to increase, not a problem of inflation. My vote is NO