Current one is not investor friendly.
ICP has only 1 liquid staking protocol, changes dont really affect it.
The stake on those other platforms secures very different things. Most do not make long-term decisions about the protocolâŚthey stake about the short term security of an alogrithm that can be proven with determinism and stakes slashed if bad decisions are made. ICP is fundamentally different in that it tries to make long term governace decions and let the market slash over time if bad decisions are made.
*Some of those may try to make long term decisons with that short of stake time and if they do they have not security and please let me know how much capital we need to exploit themâŚyou fundâŚIâll code.
For all these other protocols the node providers (aka Validators) need to have a stake in order to spin nodes, but in ICP Network node providers do no stake any ICP for spinning a node. So the Network Security and the Network Survival is only secured by the long time stakers. The 8YG is extremely important for the network security!
Selling on IDGeek and exiting before the 2 years seems the best option
Under current conditions probably with 50% discount ))
I have two questions on Mission 70:
First, why no benchmarks or contingencies if adoption goals like cloud engines and Caffeine.ai fall short? Stakers losing about one third of maturity gains for the foundationâs demand speculation feels like sleight of hand. Thoughts?
Second: How much ICP do venture capitalists and genesis neurons hold? Early reports show seed and venture capitalists got about 25 to 37 percent at genesis, around 116 to 174 million ICP, foundation about 24 percent, around 112 million. If they hold more than all retail combined, why not apply Mission 70 changes like reward cuts there first?
Yeah so to my understanding DFINITY wants:
- Neurons: Predictable, reduced inflation (code-enforced)
- NPs: Market-driven transition to cloud engines (behavioral)
The bet is that cloud engine revenue > current NP rewards, so providers will voluntarily migrate. If that bet fails, NP inflation stays higher than projected. The 49% NP reduction is optimistic modeling, not guaranteed outcome.
Meanwhile, nothing stops NPs from collecting node rewards AND cloud engine revenue.
One group gets a haircut at gunpoint. The other gets a politely worded suggestion and a pat on the back.
At least theyâre consistent, consistently shafting the people who locked up their tokens in good faith while treating node providers like theyâre doing everyone a favour by showing up.
They cant collect both node rewards and cloud engine rewards. It looks more that Gen 1 will be pushed out.
Reduction of Gen-1 Node Rewards. As discussed above, Gen-1.1 rewards
currently correspond to a reward multiplier of roughly 2 to 5 relative to estimated operating costs. We propose reducing Gen-1 rewards by 40%. This level
would still allow most node providers to cover their costs and, in most cases,
earn a positive margin, while reducing inflationary pressure from legacy nodes,
many of which are currently unused.
Some node providers may shift their offering to cloud engines (see Section 4)
or choose to discontinue operations under the new terms. In addition, several
Gen-1.1 rewards are running out by the end of 2026, leading to a natural exit of
some node providers. If 66% of Gen-1 node providers were to transfer or exit,
14
the combined effect of the lower reward level and the reduced node count would
reduce total Gen-1.1 rewards by 80% (because 1 â (1 â 0.4) Ă (1 â 0.66) â 0.8).
the whitepaper says:
Cloud engine nodes receive revenue from cloud engine customers (minus 20% burn). NNS subnet nodes receive node provider rewards. These appear to be different pools.
What it doesnât explicitly say:
Whether the same node provider can operate SOME nodes for NNS rewards AND OTHER nodes for cloud engines simultaneously. The âshift their offeringâ language implies moving from one to the other, but doesnât prohibit running both types of infrastructure.
Also worth noting: the 66% exit rate is a projection, not a mechanism. The whitepaper literally says âIf 66% of Gen-1 node providers were to transfer or exitâ - thatâs a conditional, not a commitment. Stakers get their reduction enforced by code. NPs get theirs enforced by⌠optimism?
Maximum agree. The fact this was even proposed spells the end
They will just write a new mandatory unstake proposal and everyone will eat it up because âsustainability ââŚ.
It undeniably reduced stakersâ returns, but the increased issuance of tokens by node providers and the increase in burning were all wishful thinking predictions, lacking any data or other concrete measures. This is the core logic of the white paper. Sigh, itâs disheartening.
Exactly. Because Mission 70 is FOR them and against US. Thatâs why weâve been made to bear their burden. I guess ICP is just like most crypto projects after all. All hail the whales!
2weeks staking gets 2.3% APY? madness that. 
Interesting that he figured it out and Dfinity didnt.
So I assume anybody can just set their neuron to 8 years a minute before this passes and get the bonus?
Whatâs the point any more? Iâll be dissolving, see you in Vegas in 2028
Well itâs seems to be having a positive effect on price, buy the rumour sell the news now doubt.
@borovan3 good point, I donât see anything that would prevent this from happening in the (toilet) paper on mission70
Could be worse than that, neurons were selling at 50% before mission70 was even a thing
No way Iâm voting for this as is. They need to throw us 8yg a bone here. We need a counter proposal asap. Let the negotiations beginâŚ..
Look⌠there are so many options for this. This proposal is a 1 size fits all approach for dissolve delay resizing. Why not ask which 8yg wants to unstake at 8yrs before forcing it down all our throats.
This is really disapointing if this goes through. People need to see the big picture which is marketing and adoption. Adoption is immenent since ICP is the leader in decentralized inference. Inference is about to pick up heavily. Iâd rather just be patient. Light handed moves. We can do heavy handed proposals later.
I asked this in AI (see bottom) and it suggested that Cloud Engines is a part of UTOPIA, but this is inference from about ten sources discussing UTOPIA in general. So could be totally wrong!