Now you can just hit that dissolve button and gtfout of here.
I understand that Utopia is different from the technological perspective. But from the perspective of business there are two options to deploy an application. You can spin up cloud engines on the main net or spin a your own little internet computer applying Utopia. Whereas the use of cloud engines is much simpler.
So can all the VCās, stampede for the exit coming in 2 years
Good to see fellows from 8YG who understand the tokenomics of the ICP. Yes, I agree it is a problem of business development for not delivering the necessary adoption and the necessary burn rate. I will also vote NO.
One more important thing is that actually the Node Providers rewards proposal and Staking Rewards proposal have to be separated when put to vote in NNS. Node providers should have their voice as we the 8YG members have here. These should be 2 separate decisions that must not be mixed.
The compulsory reduction to only 2 years for all neurons indeed seem like a mass exodus. Remember how @dominicwilliams preached that we need at lest 6 month Neurons in order to maintain network security, isnāt this needed any more or they plan to exit? May be there are large initial VCās who want to exit?
I Agree that 8 year is an extremely long period for blocking funds, but 2 years seems a big reduction compared to the initial claims and it is concerning. I would agree with a reduction to 4 years max staking period and 2-3 month minimum staking period, but without slashing the staking rewards. Also favoring the long term stakers with a non linear increase in voting power is a good idea.
SO my proposition is @DFINITYTeamMembers :
- Make two separate decision about the Staking Rewards and Node Rewards.
- You may offer to reduce to 3-4 Years but without slashing the staking rewards, this is a slap to 8 year stakers who believed in the project and invested long term. Favor the long term stakers with non-linear increase. Minimum staking period not less than 2-3 months, otherwise the network is also at risk. 2-3 month Min Staking period will certainly increase staking if the network is sound and people gain trust.
- Focus on increasing the adoption. Use Difinityās money from staking rewards to expand the ecosystem. Invest wisely and drive adoption step by step, the market will absorb the inflation. If you cut your budget @dominicwilliams by slashing rewards how are you going to drive adoption? Solana has much more inflation and still manages to sell all the minted tokens to the market, thus increasing the decentralization.
The actual White Paper, specifically the part for reducing inflation looks more like a financial engineering rather than a good development business plan.
If Dfinity does not have enough profits in order to sustain the network growth and adoption, may be we should think about allocating a percentage from all the rewards for network development and create a community treasury? Of course there should be very strict rules for funding projects from the community treasury.
Donāt think your vote will do anything, Dfinity will vote to adopt and with their following will have the lions share of the vote. Itās as good as done.
2y is a long time from now. Alot can happen in between.
How 10% inflation a year is not a problem?
What if to get better yield, STOP selling at low prices?
And again, why you mint and dump al that low, why not keep and sell only when price is right?
My first blush is that Iām not excited.
First - Paying 2 week lock up - HELLLLLLLLLL NO. or rather on a VERY VERY VERY exponential curveā¦maybe.
This feels like is stepped in something mushy and now it stinks:
Resulting illustrative APYs (no age bonus)
- 2 weeks: 2.3%
- 1 year: 3.5%
- 2 years: 7.0%
- 2 years + 8-year flag: 7.7%
It should be some form of the following that still hits the 41% target.
Resulting illustrative APYs (no age bonus)
- 2 weeks: 0.01%
- 1 year: 0.25%
- 2 years: 0.75%
- 4 years: 3%
- 8 years 7%
- 8 years + 8-year flag: 7.7%
Or rather
Resulting illustrative APYs (no age bonus)
- 2 weeks: 0.01%
- 1 year: 0.25%
- 3 years: 0.75%
- 6 years: 3%
- 100 years 7%
- 100 years + 8-year flag: 7.7%
8 year gang has always been a badge of ALL INā¦8 years is just a numberā¦it means forever. Too much happens in 8 years for anyone to make a rational mathematical choice about locking up for that long. It is burning the boats. 2 years is not burning the boats. 2 years is not even enough time for the NNS to mostly absorb and execute on things that are voted onā¦many approved things took longer than 2 years to build. It reduces the security of the network.
I think the north star of cycle burn is just a fantasy. We think that AI is going to be smart enough to build a self-writing internet, but not smart enough to offload the heavy computing to a non-consensus required platform with cryptographic security? Mooreās law will outrun your most glowing estimates. Maybeā¦maybeā¦if we find a high demand need for consensus-based AI compute weāll get a short-term bump in relative cycle burnā¦but Mooreās law will always drag it back down and beat it to a pulp and innovation never stops.
The largest drivers of price will remain:
- Irrational Exuberance of overstaked missionaries who are all crying in a ditch right now, bloodied and penniless.
- Governance rights over something of value.
- Locked Supply.
As far as the node providersā side goesā¦make it a market and make them compete for business, and I think most of these problems go away. I donāt know much about the economics of that side of the business, though, so Iāll let others who do weigh in. I think the two sides, maturity and hosting, should be handled and debated separately.
Just saying : Nicolas.ic is voting no on all Governance proposals, so you can follow him safely.
Staking for 8 years was not really meant for average Joe who sells car and house, stakes it and than lives off rewards in apartment for the rest of its life without building or promoting ICP. It was meant for Dfinity and other builders who can fund its operation with those rewards.
Average Joe is down bad and 24/7 crying about unfair life with no way out.
With new tokenomics, Joe can jump out AND institutions can take its place with flexible staking. Institutions dont want to be 8 years locked in, they need to constantly revaluate investment asset.
Now when Joe and Borovan is out, ICP can be pumped to 100+.
Every 8 year staked person should have own project and token. Need to work to make investment successful, not constantly cry that others dont pump and work for price.
People who dont like reward reduction is the ones who has been selling no matter the price and will keep doing so untill they out.
Ok.
That makes sense but raise to question why was Utopia not mentioned at all in the white paper?
Have they discontinued the Utopia idea (unlikely), then we have to assume Utopia is never expected to burn any cycles or reduce the inflation of ICP ? Perhaps two years ago Dominic mentioned that Utopia would require licenses and this would put pressure on ICP.
But if that is no longer the case, does that mean all profit from Utopia will circumvent IC? Itās a bit unclear why the Utopia narrative was shifted for the cloud engines narratives.
Utopia has nothing to do with ICP directly, itās a private enterprise. Dfinity have gone quiet on it as it didnāt go down well with the community. Utopia will also clearly have no direct effect on mission70, either inflation reduction or burning cycles.
I donāt want to be inflammatory, but I do think this is an important and fair question.
Isnāt Utopia also built on IC technology, with the key distinction being that it operates as a public/private network? From what I understand, development and testing have been funded for years through ICP sales.
Utopia is positioned as a solution for financial crime prevention, anti-malware, AI security, and firewall infrastructureāmarkets supposedly worth trillions annually. If that thesis holds, it seems reasonable to expect some form of licensing or enterprise revenue over time.
I think this is a fair question to ask.
Utopia has nothing to do with ICP directly, itās a private enterprise. developped and paid by selling ICP to retail for 4 years now.
I completed your post. Hope it is ok with you
On the positive side, what I really love with the proposal is that it reduce the suffering to 2 more years for many people. Sometimes, getting out of a toxic environnement (not talking about all the guys here) is much more important than money, no matter the lost. There are reasons big names left Dfinity and it started to happen over 2 years ago. I will vote YES only to get out.
We had a great spaces yesterday talking about this, some good stuff here as well, @wpb Toughts?
I also had some questions for the @Leadership
-
Will this proposal require a critical vote aka 67%?
-
Can John ball from Poked studios design the 8YG badge for the Neurons
-
Will the 8YG get a NFT blue chip from dfinity to at least reward / immortalize the movement with a cultural value, this can imo also be done by John dropped on the new @toko marketplace by @borovan3
-
Did they take into account or talk with liquid staking solutions like @WaterNeuron which @EnzoPlayer0ne Stated they will do a Live on X / spaces addressing their official position on it, as this will force them to rethink tokenomics, @infu with his staking solution
-
Like mentioned before by @EdSalazar ( detailed discussion yesterday in my spaces) the supply side ( tokenomics, voting, rewards) is very detailed a thought out, but the demand side, Self Writing internet, cloud etc, is lacking data / supporting thesis / research / documentation, the question is
Did dfinity study, run simulations, and or have more in depth insight into the demand side ?
-
Can we get a overview of all the early backers / seed / before TGE supporters and what they hold in terms of VP
-
Are there any analysis done in how the VP landscape will change as we transition into the new model, and how does that look like?
Myself personally, I like this proposal, they have a year to make it happen and adjust, tweak the design provided by the feedback from us, my advice is, if you donāt like it, provide constructive feedback with reasoning to be heard, ultimately we need to do it together to succeed, this will be a ācompromiseā between 8YG, Node providers, Whales, everyone will need to give a little in to make it work, letās try to make the best proposal / feedback out of it here and not unnecessary whine as this will be the most productive & has the best chance to make any change
My only feedback is:
Make the 2YG have 8% instead of 7.7 symbolically for the 8YG
Cheers
Dexter
2 spaces
Good part stars around 1H in
Continuation as the space rugged
I believe Mission 70 to be carcinogenic to ICP, regardless of how well-intentioned. Changing rewards HAS NEVER saved a crypto project. It just shows the old ones and newbees that the project is willing to gut anyone. Bon chanceā¦I know the end of this story
Do you think the inflation is 10% because they wrote in a witepaper that it is so? Please take a look at the tokenomics dashboard:
Node rewards for 2025: 5,860,658.00 ICP, this is 1.1% inflation relative to the 528 Mil ICP total supply at the beginning of 2025.
And the total inflation is 546 mil / 528 mil = 3.5%, this 3.5% includes the 1.1% from node rewards.
So actually what we see is a big restaking of maturity rewards , as less than half of maturity is minted into ICP.
The Node Rewards volume in ICP units depend 100% on price, and when price will be above 20$-30$ these node rewards will represent a tiny fraction of just 0.3% of total supply. But this is not my deal, Dfinity may change it as they need, i am sure they will take care Node Providers to be happy. But I donāt see an inflation threat from node rewards considering the above metrics.
Voting Rewards Function is going to 5% by 2029 and I am sure even in 2029 there will be people entering into the staking with the intention to compound for a while (greed is our human nature) , so not all maturity will be minted , as it is today. Letās say we will have 4% maturity mint, but at the same time we need to reach a 3% burn. 1% inflation is fine and I am sure many small amount of ICP will be lost in the millions of wallets that will be lost under mass adoption, just like with BTC.
Why change/break smth designed so well?
Why does someone want to reduce the maximum dissolve delay from 8 years to 2 years?
@borovan3 lowered the Max Dissolve Delay for new neurons to 8 years in Dragginz SNS without touching existing ones (old 888 years ones are untouched).
Maybe DFINITY should just copy that approach instead of overcomplicating things?
The whitepaper states that it aims to reduce inflation from both neurons and node providers.
For neurons, the path is clear: the changes are well specified and can be implemented via a software upgrade.
For node providers (NPs), however, the reduction from 3.84% to 1.97% inflation is largely based on assumptions. The mechanism is underspecified and leaves significant wiggle room.
How many Gen-1 / Gen-2 nodes are there now?
- Gen-1: 1,030
- Gen-2: 391
Current NP rewards (monthly, USD terms)
- Gen-1: ā $1,586,200 / month
- A 40% reduction equals $634,480 / month less
- Gen-2: ā $821,100 / month
- Unchanged
Best-case scenario
- Total NP rewards drop by ~26.4% (from the Gen-1 cut alone).
- Additional reductions may occur if Gen-1 providers exit or transfer to cloud engines.
However, this opens further unanswered questions.
Open questions left by the whitepaper
- Are Gen-1 node providers still allowed to upgrade to Gen-2?
- Does transferring to cloud engines mean node providers no longer receive node rewards?
(This is implicitly assumed in the modeling, but not explicitly specified.) - Who is allowed to operate cloud engines? How hard it is for new providers?
Worst-case scenario
- Gen-1 node providers upgrade to Gen-2 instead of exiting.
- NP rewards are not reduced and may increase by ~40%, directly undermining the inflation-reduction goal.
Neuron-side concern (secondary effect)
- Total ICP supply: ~547M
- ICP staked in neurons: ~200M (ā 400M voting power)
- Liquid ICP: ~347M
If ~200M ICP is staked at 2 weeks:
- Voting power ā 200M
Compared to:
- 2-year neurons: ā 600M voting power
This could shift reward flow and voting power from long-term stakers to short-term stakers, while overall inflation does not decrease meaningfully.
The introduction suggests that node providers and neurons will both experience a similar reduction in rewards, but unless it is explicitly defined what node providers can and cannot do, the burden falls almost entirely on neurons.
In practice, neurons take a guaranteed hit, while node providers could maintain or even increase their rewards and influence, depending on how upgrades, cloud engines, and onboarding are handled.
Moreover, once 2-week neurons are approved and allowed to vote, control is likely to shift permanently and irreversibly.