I am in the other camp. I’ve found that delays for excessive research and debate can stifle progress and sometimes ruin a project. Positive action is better than none, in my opinion. Since we can always update the incentives via proposal it’s better to get an improved set in place quickly and revise/update them as needed.
1 Like
What is the analysis on 3.31M ICP unlocked each month from Seed/Strategic round? It gets locked or dumped?
This unlock is only valid explanation to price dump. Not node rewards.
Why switch condition on node providers when you can switch condition on early investors?
1 Like
@bigbro, We’ve already discussed this. Please read through the thread again to catch up.
1 Like
Discussed option for “Any value that hasn’t been dispersed to seed/private sale neurons monthly is tracked as 0% interest debt owed to the seed/private sale neurons monthly by the network. This debt is later serviced when the price of ICP has risen enough to permit the NNS to be able to service the debt while staying within the ICP cap that we decide on.”?
Lot of people making forked threads of this. I think it’s appropriate for you @Jesse and/or @Accumulating.icp to start fresh thread on parameters for NP reward parameters that we can follow.
I fully support this proposal idea, but do think it should be made also with respect to the NNS unlocks/rewards as a pure timetable issue. Your app for this is months away from completion, as would be any implementation of these revised node provider incentives. A change to neuron parameters, in my admittedly very limited understand of it, could be changed very quickly.
4 Likes
Getting started on it now. @Accumulating.icp About to dm you on twitter.
3 Likes
I’m sorry friend, I already proposed something along these lines and it was highly unpopular but hilariously controversial.
1 Like
I’ve created a new thread discussing the parameters to a proposed solution. You can find it here
4 Likes
it’s real simple the network just don’t need 546 nodes as it has right now. look at the cycle usage it’s a pittance. no real business would provision hundreds of servers when maybe 20 would do…
hell go crazy and have 50 or 100, but not 546. this is totally detached from the reality of network usage and scaling required presently, perhaps people thought IC would get crazy adoption but it didn’t. so time to trim the fat.
we are just paying for electrons and silicon that’s sitting their warming up some data centers, and these NPs have to dump into the market to pay for their servers to sit there waiting for customers who don’t exist.
5 Likes
I think the sense of urgency in this forum thread escalated too quickly today. While I agree it’s a good topic to discuss, we don’t need to try to turn it into a community driven proposal at this time. Node provider rewards are issued monthly approx mid month. This is a slower moving train that doesn’t need a hasty solution. It needs more thorough analysis and consideration. I recommend slowing down and giving more people more time to digest information and ideate.
8 Likes
Sounds like we have a month to get a proposal passed and implemented?
At the current rate of decline, the longer the worse, I hope to solve this problem as soon as possible
3 Likes
Yep. I understand the fear but making hasty decisions and implementing half-baked ideas based on it is a recipe for disaster. At the very least we need more input from the people who this directly affects: the node providers themselves. If they aren’t part of the ideation and proposal process we’re likely to go too far and turn them off for good.
3 Likes
I think at this time, we should protect the price of ICP and keep it tied to FIL, rather than allow this incident to continue to expand, and DFINITY still does nothing at this time！！！！！！
Could anyone tell me whether to pay 1206 or 546? Recently, nodes have grown rapidly, the lower the price, and the faster node number growth 
2 Likes
Currently, I’m not in favor of blaming node providers as scapegoat for the inflationary problem by cutting their reward, or increasing the costs for developers. Why should we punish node providers when they are doing an excellent job of maintaining quality service? Increasing cycles cost also could lead to lower market attractiveness.
Do not blame production department as because ICP face market demand issue. The crosshair target should goes to the sales & marketing department.
While responsible Node Provider onboarding is essential, it should not compromise service quality. To achieve this, we can establish a metric to balance network demand and Node Provider onboarding. For instance, we can define a minimum ratio of cycles burnt to ICP reward per node provider. If the projected forecast doesn’t support this ratio (too low demand), we should temporarily halt onboarding new Node Providers, and existing ones should postpone capacity increases.
3 Likes
Lets ignore neurons for a second.
Apps burn cycles, nodes process cycles, if what node providers are getting paid to process cycles, is higher than what Apps burn then we are operating at a loss.
This loss is manifested via inflation, additional tokens are created and sold on the market, they have to be sold to cover costs, if there are no nodes there is no network. If nobody buys the tokens the price comes down and the project dies. That’s just market economics.
Anybody buying tokens is essentially betting that App burn cycles will go up. They are betting that eventually, more cycles are being burnt than what is being paid to the node providers. If/When this happens there will be a high demand for (ICP) from cycles and it will also become deflationary. The tokens you bought and held are now going up via deflation and there is a demand for these tokens through utility. The investors buying into the inflation will get that back through deflation and demand at a later date, they also get the bonus of a vote on how the network is ran.
There is no problem with this, as far as I can see.
The problem is this. We are operating at a loss and nodes are still being added to the network faster than they are required by Apps. Investors are accepting more and more nodes through proposals every time a proposal comes in, and essentially, for want of a better word, fucking themselves to the benefit of the node providers. See proposals 124507, 124499 and 124524 which are currently going to pass.
Investors needs to pause and reject these proposals. There needs to be a view we have (as decision makers) which shows us where we are capacity wise, we should only be adding nodes when they’re needed, either geographically or by capacity, else we (investors) are the ones complaining about what we are causing.
Now let’s discuss neurons, the interest they pay is bonkers! Certainly at this moment in time.They should be treated as dividends.
When we get to the point where more cycles are being burnt than what node providers are being paid, and we enter deflation, THEN we can create ICP to pay the investors (those voting through neurons). So if deflation was at 100M ICP a year, 80M ICP would be split between the voting neuron holders with a bigger percentage going to those with the longest delay.
The above example would mean ICP deflates 20M per year, when ICP is at X (lets say 300M ICP) then 100% of deflation gets created as ICP and split between voting neurons.
Maturity needs to stop being paid ASAP. I suggest any maturity that would have been paid goes into a weighted pot for future “dividends”, so people who are invested now get more than someone who comes along once we are deflationary.
6 Likes
Let’s ask this question then:
Why is DFINITY onboarding new node providers if their computation is not yet needed, and on top of that, we are facing an imminent death spiral event?
There are two answers to this in my mind, help me understand which one is the correct answer:
- DFINITY is working against the best interests of the ICP network.
- There is no inflation spiral in sight.
If there’s more nuance to this, would appreciate any help understanding it.
4 Likes
As far as I’m aware, we who vote on the proposals are onboarding them, not DFINITY. I mean, I can apply to spin up a few servers in a data centre now, if it passes the proposal I’m in, sure DFINITY get a vote and have a big say but that’s all.