Ok guys, here is what we are going to do. 
4 Likes
Maybe you can further improve this, since Lannister rhymes with canister. 
3 Likes
please grandfather us loyal 8 year vets in 
@dominicwilliams
6 Likes
The great thing about the NNS is that it isn’t static and that it is able to grow/improve, but this is also the most scary ICP concept for a lot of people.
I think the fact that these types decisions are hard to pass and take a lot of discussion is in itself a feature and not a bug. It’s democracy of a DAO in action, big changes need a lot of community deliberation.
As long as existing neurons aren’t changed by default, and even get a choice, then I think this ultimately shows the power of the NNS to evolve while remaining stable and trustworthy.
I also love seeing all these different perspectives from various DFINITY team members like yourself, and Dom’s thoughtful replies in response to feedback. DFINITY’s doing some great work in this thread and it’s appreciated!
There will always be a few trolls like cat pirate, but that’s because people really love ICP and care deeply about this network. Just remember what Leslie Knope says:
6 Likes
I completely agree with that sentiment
2 Likes
My man Dom,
Sorry but i would not feel good about this regarding my self interest. I have saved up and locked up my 8 year neuron with intent of receiving 1 ICP in rewards daily for the foreseeable future. The fact that my neuron would be reduced to a 5 year stake and accrue less % and maturity would not sit right with me for i never intended on dissolving my neuron, with that in mind i figured i would recoup my investment via maturity within 5-6 years and now if this happens it would take A LOT longer, it doesn’t seem right. Also 8 year staker (8 yearsgang) would be considered the most loyal no? putting commitment for 8 years, this is not wanted by the 8 yearsgang community from what i see on X so it would be doing a disservice to us imo. Now my opinion is to allow people with 8 year neurons who would like to reduce to 5 years do so which i don’t think would be many at all and let the rest of us keep our neuron at 8 years with current stats, we would be the ultimate OG neurons. but maybe turn off adding ICP and maybe auto stake maturity to these neurons for the sake of your point of reducing the stake in the 1st place. maybe set a certain date were after that date no more auto maturity and adding ICP to 8 year neurons occur. I personally don’t feel positive at all about changing this up it affects us most loyal to the project and our rewards not cool imo. srry Dom know its prob not what you wanna hear but this is how I and i think a lot of us 8 yearsgang stakers feel as well.
Pew Pew Bang Bang 8 YEARSGANG for life!
7 Likes
Ok, I came late to suggest giving people this option 
. (Although 5Y neurons might not be so happy with it).
In the future, it would be nice to have the rewards somehow dependent on the cycle burning, in the direction of futarchy.
It is not a pay cut though. It’s more of a reduced time staked. Kind of like if your employer cut your weekly hours from 40 to 30. Sure it’s a reduced income but it’s not a pay cut since the amount you get paid per hour does not change. Still sucks though. Likewise for this new proposal you have your ICP stake for 5 years which is a 37% decrease in how long you have to Wait until your ICP is fully dissolved.
Yeah but the neuron will be forever staked, it’s only use is to pay developers. So on 8 years it pays the development team 10K ICP a year, and on 5 years 8K ICP is a pay cut.
7 Likes
Yes, I love this.
Also made a post about in on X if anyone would like te debate on it.
People always appreciate choice and having time to decide… So over six months, say, the network could progressively lower the max neuron dissolve delay of neurons with >5Y delay if they haven’t opted to keep it the same.
An “Opt-out of dissolve delay reduction” neuron config checkbox would be added. If this wasn’t checked, then 3 months after an NNS proposal was adopted agreeing the tokenomics change, say, an 8Y neuron’s dissolve delay would have fallen to 6.5Y, and the owner wouldn’t be able to put it back.
That would give early neuron holders the choice/freedom to stay where they are with all the same behaviors if that’s what they want, as well as time to decide, together with some extra degree of adjustability if they wish to compromise by e.g. allowing a delay to fall to just 7 (neuron splitting functionality would be useful for helping neuron holders get the balance they want)
This arrangement looks pretty win-win on first sight.
15 Likes
I feel as though by eliminating the ability to create 8 Year Neurons, you’re simultaneously eliminating the greatest marketing campaign we have for staking - the 8 Year Gang - which not only secures the network through voting power, but also combats the inflation of the network, given the duration of stakes.
I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but maybe it’s more appropriate to bring deflationary factors in alignment with inflationary factors than trying to simply remove more voting rewards to combat inflation.
6 Likes
Love it! A one-time choice great! As you said 
@dominicwilliams
This feels very good.
I mean, leading up to the implementation of this I’m betting we’d see an “8 year gang” gold rush.
Also, it’ll immortalize those who got the 8 year neurons and choose to keep them. Imagine an “8 Year Gang OG Lounge” at a future ICPCC conference, lol!
9 Likes
I reacted irrationally originally to this post, i’ve since had time to reflect and talk to others, so I apolgize for that, let’s just wait and see what the new roadmap on the 10th looks like before myself especially lose my head when there’s perhaps no need to, as others maybe keeping theirs
How about giving an option to 8 years locked neurons to stay as 8 years or change it to 5 years, . Going forward, 8 years neurons no longer offered and maximum up to 5 years!
3 Likes
This definitely would not contribute to creating further division & fragmentation within our community long term 
4 Likes
Yes, this was Dom’s latest suggestion
1 Like
This is transparent, and significantly more appealing to some of us, thanks for this @dominicwilliams
1 Like
HELLLL NOOOO to give a 20% hair cut to the 8 year gang.
NO NO NO
Im pissed off that that is even a proposal.
8 year gang stacked to get that specific percentage.
If the 8 year gang wanted to stacked to 5 year, they would have done that instead
No comment on number 2, difficult to understand if someone can please explain with a simple 100ICP staked example
1 Like