re: Proposal 1, the idea could arguably work with these modifications:
All holders of neurons where dissolve delays is above 5Y, are given a one-time choice per neuron:
– Drop to 5Y
– Stay at >5Y (e.g. stay at 8Y)
After the change, it would become impossible to set the dissolve delay beyond 5Y on new or existing neurons (even though some early neurons would stay at 8Y because their owners want to maximize maturity growth and bought into that config)
Adjust the overall neuron reward down so that, given some amount of ICP locked, some age, and some dissolve delay, maturity continues growing at very nearly exactly the same rate it does today
This would still have some immediate impact, since I think many early people would probably hedge and allow some of their neurons to drop to 5Y, and obviously over a long period of time the impact would grow, because it wouldn’t be possible to create new 8Y neurons.
[EDIT/UPDATE on seeing what MotokoMartin said]
4) And it would become impossible to top-up a neuron with >5Y dissolve delay (otherwise the change could be circumvented)
Fair point, it’s a good deal but only if you ever plan on dissolving.
I have a 1,000 ICP 8 year neuron, and I’d rather keep the reward rate I have now and have it increase to a 100 year dissolve delay rather than have a 5 year dissolve delay and 20% reduction.
I’m probably a nutcase, but my goal was to someday live on neuron rewards without needing to dissolve.
This basically resolves any issues I might have with such change - just let me keep my shiny never dissolving 8y neuron that would gain maturity on same rules it gains now.
More over if it’s implemented this way(with owners of neurons having a choice) - it creates a precendent that if major tokenomics changes do occur, pre-existing “contracts” are still honored, and this is important from investor point of view(less unpredictability and chaos)
@dominicwilliams I am an 8 year staker (I know you know this, so mostly saying this more for readers lol) so this would affect me directly and I am still not sure how I feel about the proposals. I need to let them brew longer for my particular case and see how I feel. I am actively reading and considering as this proposal is new to me.
One thing I have found for myself and others is that a lot of times these conversations & proposals can get scary to readers because of the numbers being discussed.
Following the idea of iterative nature of the NNS DAO, do you think it could be wise to make smaller changes, give it X months, evaluate and then double down if they work? People may be less afraid of reducing things to 62% if they had already reduced to 90% and the 80% and then 70%, at each point seeing that the world didnt crash (or inversely, maybe even reducing to 90% was too painful).
To argue against myself, the above may not be wise because a small percentage change may be too small to see a positive impact on. If an elected official were elected one week at a time, one can see how that person would never get anything done.
Curious on your thoughts.
(I should note my bias: my controversial “hot take” is that I suspect that the ICP DAO should embrace more iteration as design meets the world, so I am always thinking about the wisdom of too little vs too much rigidity).
@dominicwilliams I am in favor of a “grand-fathering” in of the original (current) 8-year Neurons as a Thank You to original investors.
My suggestion would be:
After X date the cap is now 5 years.
Original 5+ (up to 8) year non-dissolving neurons get the option of keeping their status as such with an option of lowering to 5 years + accrued age due to difference in downscaling. If they are EVER dissolved, their cap will automatically be tied to the new limit of 5 years, and they can no longer increase their delay beyond 5 years.
For example: if someone chose to dissolve an 8 year neuron and changed their mind a month later, it would be scaled down to 5 years over the next 2 years and 11 months and it would stay there. In such a scenario, it would probably make sense that they lost their age bonus aswell, but had it reaccrue over the next 2 years and 11 months because the age cap is what is decreasing (and what they actually lost) while they are still staking as the new maximum of 5 years.
The upside of this system is a few things:
You reward your early adopters.
You heavily decentivize the 8-year-gang from considering leaving, because any 8-year-gang neuron would immediately be hit by a 3-year cap decrease (and possibly an immediate loss of their age-bonus along the way down).
You actually put the VC’s in a position, where their pump-n-dump plans work to their disadvantage, because grand-fathered neurons would be very valuable, but also stable for the entire system as a whole.
Sure, you might still have to adjust some rates, and sure it could seem “unfair” that someone are inherently at an advantage, because they were “early”, but keep in mind, that with this system, you are literally only rewarded for staying loyal, and if you - even for a split second - dissolve your neuron, the rewards are lost permanently, and the neuron is no longer “grandfathered” - it is just another neuron, like the 99% who didn’t believe in ICP while it was in it’s infancy.
EDIT 1: I am in favor of the second proposal (about using maturity to “free up” locked ICP).
EDIT 2: What I wrote about also in no way takes into consideration, the actual NNS value of voting power, which could probably discussed as a separate issue.
love Game of Thrones!