@dominicwilliams if there’s no new top up from 8 year neurons, this included the autostake in that “top up” ?
If NOT is included, then the only option to make my ICP grow in that neuron will
Be with this autostake function? Or am able also, not to auto stake, but have maturity available and later on, opt to stake that maturity? Thanks
ICP still needs more and more 8-year enthusiasts. Stopping newbies joining the 8-year gang may eventually make the 8-year gang a minority of the community someday, which can put the 8-year gang in danger since theoretically the majority can then directly deprive the 8-year neurons simply by voting.
The ICP community can be stronger only if the 8-year gang can be stronger.
If a newbie buys 1000 ICP to join the 8-year gang, he may sell about 150 ICP rewards a year (for whatever reasons), but let’s not forget that 1000 ICP is still greater than the total rewards of more than 6 years. If this newbie cannot join the 8-year gang, he may not buy 1000 ICP in the first place: reduction in ICP selling may also imply reduction in ICP buying. Is anyone able to do the exact math? I doubt it.
It can be strategically dangerous to discriminate against the newbies in such an obvious way.
some people have mentioned the importance of deflationary mechanisms; may i suggest my old proposal of allowing instant unlocking of neurons at the cost of being slashed? Neuron Instant Dissolve + Slashing
"(originally posted in ICPMN telegram)
what do you all think of an nns mechanism that would allow a neuron to instantly dissolve, at the cost of being slashed?
something like a 10% slash for a 6 month neuron, up to a 50% slash for an 8 year neuron
would reduce total supply while allowing some flexibility"
We’re only going off the information we have to us at the time. I find it ironic posts in protest aren’t allowed here.
If this was the plan, it should have been in the original proposal.
To clarify, the 8 year non dissolving neurons won’t be affected?
Those who had planned to have a neuron remained locked indefinitely and use the voting rewards and ICP to either invest in more projects or sell, will remain like that?
Further, the received maturity will not diminish the principal of the original investment?
So for example if a person has an 8 year neuron (not dissolving) and takes all their maturity rewards out as they come. In 8 years time that person still has a staked and non dissolving neuron with the same amount remaining in principle that they started with, correct?
This analysis and chart by @bjoernek about 1 year ago is showing that burning will outpace the inflation and nodes rewards combined in only 4-5 years or so. So, @dominicwilliams where is the inflation problem then? Don’t we just need patience instead of a proposal that will, again, divide the community as it did before?
That analysis and chart made me confident that Dfinity had a plan and knew what they were doing. This proposal is indicating the exact opposite.
So, was this analysis only a marketing stunt to board more investors in the 8 years gang? Or it was and still is a serious effort to share the plan to the community.
If this is a serious analysis, then why bringing such a proposal on the table?
Why don’t Dfinity just build confidence in investors by sharing that analysis over and over?
Because now, these kind of proposal only destroy more and more the investor’s confidence. Who would want to invest in such an unstable project?
I would certainly not recommend a friend to jump in and make financial plans with ICP.
Why is @dominicwilliams now find 8 years being too long period, 3 years after launch while he was previously preaching the long term commitment so hard?
I agree we can lower the 8 years to 5, but keep the rewards the same.
According to your own charts, there will not have enough ICP available in 5 years and maybe we will have to do the exact opposite, mint more ICP and provide more rewards? Who knows?
Please stop with 'Evolve", ‘Flexibility’. This is not how serious investors work.
Totally agree with you
Not to mention it’s the investors who are springing life back into this on the public radar as NOT being a scam as so many people still believe.
Investors who were also drawn to this project because of the tokenomics, the number of people staking their money for 8 years not dissolving etc.
To try and rug pull those people (who are locking away their money 8 years not dissolving, with no promise of a return on investment mind you), I know a lot of investors will lose absolute faith in this project - for another time…
When did I say to screw over dfinity?
It’s a protest.
Are protests not allowed?
You might be able to censor a protest here, but we have open chat, twitter etc.
Do you you really think I would have an 8 year neuron if my plan was to ‘screw over’ dfinity as you say?
Dfinity are proposing to ‘screw us over’, but that’s ok right?
To @dominicwilliams and everyone else who wants to change tokenomics.
I may have missed some details, but I read most of the discussion. I would like to introduce some principles of tokenomics that I believe in.
The network must be stable, and also tokenomics must be stable.
I know some have argued for deflation. However, I don’t think deflation is a good thing; because of the first and the second. Ideally, the proportion of newbies’ staking should be a meaningful amount. (Of course, it shouldn’t be too big.) As long as there is no “death spiral”, inflation is not a big problem. The long term inflation rate, around 5 percent, is not too high. People will also burn tokens. If it’s predictable, whatever inflation or deflation, people can adapt and plan their actions.
Even though I agree with some parts of domic:
I don’t believe such problems are critical. Predictability is so important that economic models should not be changed unless there is a major problem.
Exactly, no one wants to invest into a project when the fundamentals as to why they made the investment in the first place can be changed at any time.
Given the track record in the public eye, dfinity need long term investors, or they would have suffered a different kind of death spiral.
Investors saved them from one death spiral, only for proposals to be made to change the fundamental reason they made the investment in the first place.
I remember locking away initially for 8 years, I’m sure there was a warning of sorts that this was irreversible… cannot be undone etc.
It’s an absolute hypocrisy
Thank you for your answer @bjoernek.
We still have enough data available to perform a deep analysis since we can see :
– exactly the change of icp stake of each neuron
– exactly the change of maturity stake of each neuron (vpgeek.app tracks this data)
– and approximatively the amount of liquid maturity of each neuron
Exactly, so we could check how the 38M disbursed are distributed : who are these disbursers ? If the main part of them are short-term stakers, the proposal 1 (1.1 and 1.2) will not change their behavior but could change the one of long term stakers (converting them to a behavior of lesser staking/not staking more/unstaking)
If the 38M are due to long term stakers, the proposal could be good.
We must do the same analysis to check the distribution of the maturity staking : are those 8M due to long term stakers or to short term stakers.
Taking in account the difference between behavior or locked/unlocked neurons would be important too :
– If a long term staker never disburse, but whose neuron is dissolving, that’s a bad thing for inflation eventually
– whereas a locked short-term staker would comparatively be a lesser weight for inflation
So, more data are needed to be assured that this proposal 1 is a good call.
dfinity is abstaining from voting on this proposal. dom has agreed to a grandfather clause so that no current unwilling 8 year staker would be affected. you aren’t even reading the thread before getting angry, which dom has pinned to the top of the page and which you still don’t read lol
Agree that this already passed proposal have to be implemented first, and see from there.
I am convinced that some dead people and lost accounts are receiving rewards every day. I consider this as a nonsense. Dead people are getting paid for voting. Think about this for a moment.
It was voted and passed. Should be implemented, rather sooner than later.
But if Dfinity or/and Dominic decide not to implement it, as they seems to have decided, there is nothing we can do.
(Wondering how IRS will manage to tax the rewards of a dead person 
)
Maybe worth looking into keeping the same rewards for those neurons that are active and manually vote every single day and adjust rewards for the ones who vote mostly based on the neurons they follow?
If I were to do it, I would limit maturity to some max cap amount tethered to fiat (or gold even just in case of hyperinflation), and after that limit (that will come when ICP price go up) we can tether it 1:1 with ICP being burned for prices above the limit.
I don’t think there is any benefit in coming up with a two-tier structure, 8YearGang is ICP’s unique culture and brand, and we should keep it
So 35 Million #ICP per year? Why did you say 3 Million ICP per year if maturity in the end is used to mint ICP tokens?
If I’m not wrong, maturity cannot be used to mint Bitcoin or Ethereum tokens, right?
I think this alone speaks volumes.
Why hasn’t the founder proposing major tokenomics changes shared this news with his 200,000 twitter followers?
Because it’s an open discussion on the forum, it serves as a prime example of how things should be done. From immediately updating the proposition when the community wanted to keep the 8-year neurons, to stating that Dfinity won’t vote. Once the actual proposition is in place, that’s the time to post it on X
4 comments out of 290+ were flagged by the community and I agreed with their tenor.
Meanwhile, dozens of other comments disagreed or pushed back to Dom’s proposal and still remain.
If you think this is censorship, then I guess you do not see eye to eye with this forum. That’s ok. There are plenty of other places where you can discuss ICP related topics.
