Same, I plan on never hitting that dissolve button and leaving it to my children. I would be sad to see that 8 turn to a 5.
14 Likes
I would be out if it’s reduced as I was sold on the promises, this feels like a kick in the teeth
3 Likes
What is Dfinity’s VP%? This is a dangerous topic @dominicwilliams and I think we need transparency here, this type of post is naturally causing fear amongst the people that decided to lock for 8 years and never hit dissolve, you’re a genius but either a) you’ve gotten this horribly wrong, or b) this was the intention all along, i’d like to think it’s the former
2 Likes
But I I think that Dominic’s goal is less about reducing the inflation than reducing the selling pressure. And one could argue that the inflation due to people having « forgotten » their neurons and their following do not take part to this selling pressure. But I agree that this implementation is a double necessity : it has been asked and is a limit to inflation and selling pressure to come.
1 Like
Exactly: and the same system for all already existing neurons: They continue to be the same 6 monts to 8 year neurons, dissolving or undissolving and “New staking would work according to the new scheme however.”
And the new scheme will NOT affect the neurons that are in existence before the new scheme got introduced.
Otherwise i am very dissappointed in who ever made such a proposal.
Im a 101% ICP Maxi, and really would be dissappointed if that would happen!
Why? Because i believed long term and decided to lock away my money basically forever 8 undissolving, its all strictly planned with my hard earned money. Something like that should not be able to happen.
10 Likes
The 8 years gang is literally the strongest group of advocates/ promoters the internet computer can have i am concerned we gonna lose a lot of strong voices in the community i think we all can agree that we don’t wanna see our investment getting diluted over time but we need to consider better option to reduce inflation IF it is really that big of a PROBLEM? is it? and i am confident we just giving outsiders another handle to say dfinity doesn’t care about it’s investors interest etc etc look at other ecosystems they are mostly flourishing because they have a loyal community because the get great inventive to do so… just sayin don’t become what they want you to become…
7 Likes
This idea has a lot of potential, but some will say: “I thought I knew I was following XYZ and then the network reset my follows when I wasn’t looking; insiders took advantage of me!” etc.
7 Likes
I followed it here, however I was told there was a design flaw, to which I attempted to provide an amendment. Eventually DFINITY provided the following response, claiming the proposal is now void, under the premise that the primary objective was reducing spam:
However, the background of the proposal depicts something different:
2 Likes
Dear @dominicwilliams,
Would you mind answer this ? Thanks ! 
1 Like
That means you need to be active and you can’t necessarily set and forget. it can lead to more user error but it’s a lot less devastating than what was initially proposed.
2 Likes
Nothing is written in stone on the IC that is one thing everyone should always keep in mind… imo it would contribute a lot to decentralization of the nns and make people more actively involved in participating and learning about IC governance
3 Likes
Haters will be haters. The Internet Computer community should continue to optimize the network, and network tokenomics, with aim of making everything better.
Of course, if the vast majority of the 8 Year Gang holders feel that being bumped down to 5Y neurons is somehow bait and switching them – because they never intended to dissolve – that makes this harder to do (not least because they would vote against it, and as usual DFINITY wouldn’t vote on something like this, but because community harmony is important).
But currently, 8Y lockups would be reduced to 62.5% of what they are now (5Y), while maturity growth would be reduced to 80% of what they are now… Arguably a great deal.
10 Likes
This equation stems from a disproportion in staking rewards though, which is something that has been agreed, so wouldn’t it be more responsible to start there?
If the goal is to decrease inflation, we need to address the leading factor; the lack of relationship between cycles burnt and node provider rewards, not reduce the incentivization for users to secure the network through voting.
4 Likes
To avoid all of the problems that come with this idea:
Let us keep our existing 6 month - 8 year neurons (without any changes made, dissolving or undissloving.) As a sign of recognition to the early believers and supporters.
From the date when the new scheme gets implemented, from that moment on, all the changes apply to newly created neurons. And those who existed before that will stay unchanged forever.
If the existing neurons get affected, many MANY people will get very VERY upset and dissappointed.
I am a 101% ICP Maxi and a 202% fan and look up to you @dominicwilliams , but if this happens with my 8 year neurons, i will be very dissappointed. I feel very bad having to read a idea like this.
It cant happen like this man!
14 Likes
This is spot on. Surely other factors can be looked at before screwing with your most loyal investors
5 Likes
I very much wouldn’t like my 8y neuron to turn into 5y with reduced rewards.
Kind of knew what I was doing when I locked stake for 8 years and I planned accordingly - to never ever dissolve this neuron and make my game solely from the rewards it’s printing
I also think it’s important to keep core tokenomics of ICP more or less a constant - investors don’t like uncertainty and unpredictability in assets they hold
10 Likes
Do @Manu idea and this, I think this will solve everything with the inflation problems. Active members are consistently receiving rewards and additional inflation is reduced for new neurons. I think this fixes problems for neurons in place and inflation going forward.
1 Like
@dominicwilliams Dominic, I think you should have started with the second proposal. We humans tend to be susceptible to the first proposal we hear, and if it’s negative, it affects our decision regarding the following proposals.
If I understand correctly, basically if I have 10,000 locked ICP in my neuron, and I have 1,000 in maturity (unstaked), I can exchange it for 1,000 ICP, leaving my neuron with 9,000 ICP and 1,000 in maturity but now (staked)?
Would my neuron still give me rewards for the same 10,000? (I know this depends on the voting power), but my question is, wouldn’t this affect my rewards generated as they are currently being managed, where there is no distinction between liquid ICP and staked maturity when generating rewards?
I understand that this could contribute to selling pressure since if I need 10k, according to the example you gave, in these countries they would need to sell 12,500 USD to get 10,000, paying this 20% tax, whereas the way it has been handled so far they would have to sell 20,000 USD to get the same 10,000 USD after the 50% tax.
What if this is adopted (if works how I’m describing) and also the first proposal but just for new neurons, and genesis.?
I think that I’m OK with the eight year neuron that I have non-dissolving be converted to a five year however I think it would be good to create some sort of recognition to the original eight year gang neurons that have been staking for years. For instance, my neuron has been staking for three years already in non-dissolving status and it would be cool to keep that recognition on those neurons that have remained faithful from the beginning so I don’t see a problem with lowering the eight years to five memorable
1 Like
You can find that on the ICP Dashboard.
6 Likes