Id say, do the change to max 5 year, but keep the 8 year gang who already had it from 1.mai or some date already passed. This way OG’s get a well deserved bonus and not possible for people prevote to stake for 8 years.
Or set a date ahead of time, where all can stake for 8 years before said date. Could be massive lockdowns, anyway, keep the 8 year OG’s but 5 years max in the future is my vote.
It will become sad if 8 year gang dissolves from its origin completely
Im an OG in ICP since 2021 and i locked my icp forever. I have plans to keep my ICP for my kids. Plz dont change how the rewards are for those who believed in ICP back then while everyone was calling it a scam. Change it to all new stakers who decide to stake now. Not for those who stood behind ICP since the beginning. Thanks
What a horrible idea to penalize those that truly believed in ICP enough that they locked up 10’s of thousands or even hundreds of thousands for 8+years.
You can word it how ever you like saying your giving us something back. (lessening the amount of time staked to 5 years) But this is not want we want or signed up for.
Most of us that staked for 8+ years, don’t have the intention of dissolving.
We believe in ICP.
We are in it for the long haul. If it goes to $0 or to $10,000 we are locked in.
Taking that away would be a punch in the gut to everyone that staked more than 5 years.
Taking away rewards only for those that staked +5 years up to 8 years is only going to make those that were fully committed to ICP have second thoughts.
Grandfathering in any neurons 5-8 years would solve this issue. Any new neurons would max out at 5 years staked. Also giving people a choice to unlock all or a portion their staked ICP if they don’t agree with the direction of the changes. We can’t be the only ones getting possibly screwed with this proposal.
The ICP selling pressure may have nothing to do with the 8-year staking mechanism.
From the following picture, it seems that the Big whales are dumping us – that is the real reason.
I see this picture from twitter for the first time (https://twitter.com/CR_Thomas_W/status/1787720680970113186, Balance ≥ 1M – ICP Analytics).
Maybe you guys already knew it long ago, but it’s pretty shocking to me, tbh.
It will be really sad if we change the current “perfect” staking mechanism abruptly for nothing.
Kyle already responded to that. They are seed unlocks going to dozens of investors.
Do you mean this picture?
I knew this picture long ago, but they are very different. I didn’t see so many whales from the old picture. The number of big whales with over 1 million ICP is far beyond my imagination.
“Yea well that’s like your opinion man.” Lol srry had to put the big lebowski reference here.
My best case scenerio
These are the facts.
8 years pays 15.2% (from the dashboard).
Daily maturity is 67,653 (from the dashboard).
67,653 * 365 = 24,693,345 ICP a year in inflation.
Total supply = 518,305,065
Voting inflation is 0.4764249%
Sooo……
It doesn’t matter if we reduce 8 years to 5 years, what matters is the daily maturity payouts.
Any maturity payout greater than cycle burning will lead to inflation and any decrease/increase in price leads to an increase/decrease of node provider inflation.
Why not just reduce the maturity payout @dominicwilliams ?
As I put in my previous post,I’d pin maturity to cycle burn, but most wouldn’t accept that as it’s next to nothing currently.
Surely it’s just as simple as leaving everything as it is (in regards to neurons), and having a vote to reduce daily maturity by 20% to reduce inflation?
Another option.
Unlock everyone’s neurons, don’t pay any voting rewards (but let people vote) and let cycle burn make ICP deflationary?
I vote against this. How will I afford lambos?
Or just propose no maturity on dfinitys neuorns which is over 30,000 ICP daily
I believe this only accounts for known neurons.! there are still a lot unknown neurons that haven’t been indexed… (pre-genesis) meaning if the neuron ID is never been searched for on the dashboard they stay hidden…
Why is everyone so quick to try to reduce voting rewards for the second time, when there are much better avenues to explore to reduce inflation / achieve deflation? We’ve reduced APY by 50% at the end of 2022, and then proceeded to go onto bleed to an ATL at the end of 2023 - clearly it’s much more dynamic then “take away more reward and price goes up”. Why do we think yet another 20% reduction solves it, and when do we stop taking away the incentivization to vote to secure the network?
If you want to change it, change it all at once, don’t leave hidden dangers for the future, otherwise it will be more difficult to turn around when the ship is bigger in the future.
In PROTEST of this advised change to tokenomics, investors are voting NO on every single proposal ICP put forward INDEFINITELY unless given the option to be grandfathered in.
This was not the agreement we made to stake our neurons for 8 years.
Before making any significant changes to tokenomics, would it possible for someone at the foundation to provide an analysis with some hard data + charts + well-reasoned projections that illustrate the initial problem with current tokenomics, and primary reason for making the change listed in proposal 1?
Ideally, the data could be provided in a separate post thread so it’s easier for many to view?
I might first look at showing a few different scenarios. For example, if we kept the status quo with 8-year, vs. 7-year cap all the way down to 4-year to put everything in perspective.
It’s buried now, but for those who have made it all the way through this thread, this post is from @Manu is getting a lot of likes and attention from the community.
Taking into account the data modeling and forecasting requested above, it would be very interesting to see if the same inflation-reducing goal could be achieved without disrupting tokenomics at all.
.1 How many tokenomics and governance proposals did DFINITY support, endorse, vote on till date?
How many of them were implemented?
How many of them were reversed. How many of the tokenomics proposal failed?
Why is DFINITY tweaking tokenomics again and again despite failing horribly multiple times and the large negative sentiment from general crypto cloud towards its actions like these.
If you want to change it, change it all at once, don’t leave hidden dangers for the future, otherwise it will be more difficult to turn around when the ship is bigger in the future.
Didn’t DFINITY already change tokenomics to hide real inflation in maturity?
Why is there no third option of “No changes to tokenomics”?
If DFINITY submits this proposal, it must be clear to the community that DFINITY wanted this tokenomics change to happen. Also the Founder making a post about it is a clear endorsement to do so.
