New protocol rewards thoughts

we currently have a protocol reward system based on a maturity % that is acquired depending on the dissolution time and the participation in the governance, at the moment we want to make this maturity liquid, we must split a new neurone where after going through a 7-day dissolution process the final liquidity will be modulated based on the price of the PCI.

The problem that this protocol entails in the current state of the IC ecosystem is that it makes it highly inflationary due to the great divergence between the newly minted ICP and the burned ICP.

The solution I propose would be simple and logical. At the moment of wanting to make maturity liquid, in the process of modulation in the dissolution of the new neuron, do not do it based on the ICP market price, instead do it based on a public numerical index that represents the amount of ICP burned or transformed into cycles.
The greater the activity of development and ICP burned, the greater the index and the greater the final liquidity of that new neuron.

With this system we encourage long-term staking, since the greater the time, the greater the growth in the IC ecosystem and the greater the rate of ICP burned. Consequently, greater reward incentives will be obtained by dissolving the maturity with the highest ICP burn rate.

In addition, in this way , the dissolution of maturity in the short and medium term is discouraged, thus slowing down the new Minting of ICP and inflation.

higher growth = higher ICP burned = higher ICP minted for rewards and proportionally vice versa if growth is reversed. In this way, we reward governance by encouraging the growth of the ecosystem in the medium and long term and dissuade short-term minting that generates hyperinflation.

I would ask that proposals “changing how maturity works” be considered very carefully, because you are effectively rug-pulling everyone who piled in ICP for 8 years based on return figures that were very much promoted in the early days. Already modulation has introduced uncertainty “for the sake of the network” that only adds complexity for neuron holders themselves. That vote was hotly contested, if you remember.


I understand you but if we want to survive we must improve the current tokenomics, we all have the power to vote and to change things if the majority decides so

I agree that tokenomics could stand some improvements. One thing I think could have a dramatic impact is to allow trading of neurons on a secondary market. This would allow holders’ risk to be monetized, and might result in more ICP remaining locked up, because holders wouldn’t necessarily need to disburse to recover capital. Implementing this would only require the transfer of neuron ownership to another key, ideally requiring the signature of both the old key and the new key before finalizing the transfer (to defend against incorrectly entered neuron ids).


Great idea 100% agree