You hit on an essential distinction. I think that the cumulative effect of the governance votes will dictate a lot about future value of the network.
I see the fundamental security assumption of the NNS being “a voter’s stake must remain at stake until the the effect has been endured by the system and incorporated by the market.”
This is super short for things like exchange rate votes. It could be super long for things like admiting new data centers whose inclusion can flip from beneficial to the network to malicious for the network long into the future.(say a change in ownership of the data center leads to a malicious owner publishing internal canister state).
We can’t do this 1:1 in reality, so we use a time bound abstraction over it and try to make the effect match the reward we pay in order to maximize the long term thinking of the network.
The NNS does have some say over things that are fundament different than other networks. We are paying people to make right predictions about the future, not fact based consensus where we have full,deterministic knowledge.
This whole system may not be a good idea, but it is currently the one we are running with and it seems that most just want to slap a incorrect label and set of assumptions on it and degen forward.
@wpb As recently shared in this forum thread on the transfer of Internet identity anchors
DFINITY still has concerns on neuron markets for security reasons. In particular, we believe that it should be difficult to transfer neurons in order to ensure that neurons have skin in the game and thus vote in the long-term interest of the IC.
The team is still exploring ideas on how to make it more difficult to transfer neurons (or provide additional incentives to neurons which are not transferable).
They can of course also vote on other proposals too.
Isn’t the whole point of named neurons to drive decentralization? And isn’t it necessary for them to vote on code changes independent of Dfinity to achieve this?
The point I was making in my post is that if you think buying/selling of neurons is a risk to the protocol due to lack of ‘skin in the game’ then you have to apply that logic to named neurons as well which have much less skin in the game compared to the VP they control.
So the question is, if you think there’s no risk from named neurons even though they can control a disproportionate amount of VP compared to their personal stake, why do you think it’s a security risk if people buy neurons at a discount?
Is it fair for genesis neurons to have a high reward rate compared to post-genesis neurons? While the tokenomics literature outlined the rewards for both, it could lead to unfair advantages and concentration of power. We should consider implementing changes to ensure fairness and equity for all participants in the network. What are your thoughts?
Beautiful remarks, for the sake of network security and stability we would need to give all neuron holder the same benefits level and influence. Lets change the value of all account that have proven to be managed by distinct human, the same amount of token.
@wpb and bjoernek here for security right ? How can you PREVENT that the HUGE VC whales of this network will just sell in a disinterested manner to bad actors and gtfo without caring about the long term growth of the network ?
No, instead, you guys are focusing on making life hard for ppl that lost most of their money/ are more requiring the IC succeed further while those ppl are in the same time the one that have the LEAST INFLUENCE.
Yes I am aware of NFTgeek and IDgeek. Bunch of useless Anchors with 0 value and few days old probably listed by them as it was discussed to experiment and also if I am not mistaken Manu said that it is only for Anchors created with Internet Identity Frontend and that is just a tiny fraction.
Well well It seems that there are some misconceptions here.
Uniquely identify a person ? People can have many internet identity so its certainly not unique.
About your vote, I am also not sure to understand, you are then in favor of the market right ? Since dfinity people have nothing to do with it ( exept that some want to make it hard for some people to trade their neurons )
That each IC identity identifies only one person does not contradict the fact that a person can have multiple identities. The relationship is 1 to N, not 1 to 1.
The problem comes when you buy and sell identities, the essence of the identity is lost and it becomes a token that goes and comes from person to person… that’s the problem… one can have several emails that identify you, but the same email does not It goes from person to person buying and selling.
Or maybe DFINITY skeptical about this idea of neuron transfer due to panic fear of the ‘neuron market’ will at least allow their transfer if they have a ‘dissolved’ status? This would be a nice compromise, and at the same time a step forward and the beginning of further movement in this topic.
Perhaps someday, like NNS DAO, we will decide to abolish the dissolve delay and the problem will solve itself?
Neuron transferable and ii account trading feels unnecessary, if a project is issued to escrow ii account after minting new tokens, new tokens and icp do liquidity … and escrow ii account for dissolution, dissolution is completed in the market to buy back the minted tokens for destruction … can also serve as a good exit mechanism, if the price of the tokens for the market panic situation will become lower, and then slowly recover to a certain tiny difference
In many cases I see long term participants with much learned knowledge and experience burnout, pressure in life or have other interests, decide they want to move on which is a great loss to a project and then you have new interests come in that don’t have that history and experience that start the old arguments again.
Neuron owners may need a break and be able to have a break while keeping good relations so they can and would want to return at a later date.
We need to find a way to reduce the overhead and streamline voting and ownership of their neurons that cause the least friction to the owners and the project.
The IC creates neurons for cycles but instead it could burn old ICP instead so that there would be no need for outsiders to take advantage for profits as the pool could repay funds that have been earned for their participation and goodwill and not be punished.
If the pressure is off a neuron owner that they know they can sell all or part of their investment then they have options but as a 8 year neuron I have to wait for a longtime.
Also there needs to be an incentive for neuron owners to think twice about transferring their ICP from their neurons by seeing value added to the price of an ICP. Personally I see that any coin that has a circulating supply too high the value is much lower where by putting a max supply seems to give higher value.
If an ICP coin grows in value then participating should give a good reason for a neuron owner to join in discussions and also be aware of the changes and the other opportunities that they can also participate in like the SNS.
As we live in different time zones it makes it harder to vote when we are at rest.
If each proposal has 1 vote awarded to each neuron to vote on then those who don’t vote lose rewards and therefore no need for a followers list.
If a neuron that has had no activity for a period of time then could be flagged as dead for some other process to take over.
Taking away or making it harder for a third party to dominate or take control of the IC I feel would be achieved while incentivizing neuron owners to participate and they not only get rewards for each ICP in that neuron but the value of the ICP is also a reward as it grows in value.
I feel that this makes a neuron a private wallet that gives the owner control and safe guards their investment from the problems seen with exchanges which could increase investment to then loan ICP from neurons for the SNS and mitigate risk for the SNS of lack of funds and participate in projects of the choice for further rewards.