[Proposal] Reducing minimum staking time for expanding governance participation

  1. I agree with you that Tutorials totally could address the intent. I have a bias towards making things more interactive and exploratory, but as someone who has written lots of tutorials and docs, I clearly think they help.

  2. Not sure this would satisfy intent. 1 ICP would not satisfy intent because it would take a long time for someone to accumulate enough maturity to spawn a neuron. With this proposal someone could stake 100 ICP, spawn maturity snd dissolve all within a few days…

  1. I see, but thats a pretty minor concern, spawning a neuron requires a button click, again not worth changing staking for in my opinion.

Doesn’t get my support.

My two cents worth…

Yes I’m 100% in support of short-term staking but it needs to be competitive with what exchanges are offering if we want that ICP on the NNS instead. Otherwise, it won’t change anything.

I’m not in favor of giving short-term stakers voting power as they will not be long-term focused with regard to the platform.

As it stands I can’t see long-term stakers voting to take ICP out of their pockets for the benefit of people staking short-term especially if they gain voting power. Remember those who would benefit the most currently cannot vote on this.

My proposal to modify the proposal…

Allow staking with 30 day lockup to earn rewards to get that ICP on the NNS vs the exchanges.

Make that rate competitive, not equal, to the rates the exchanges are offering.

Allow them to gain aging bonus so a neuron with 30 day lock for a year earns more than a new 30 day locked neuron.

Don’t allow these short-term stakers voting power. Either it’s enough voting power to impact voting or it’s not and will not be an issue if it’s not there.


Fwiw, I think that’s a very reasonable stand.

1 Like

I know @nikhil.ranjan wants to improve the proposal. Is there anything you like least or like most? The more guidance he has, the more he can iterate.

Thank you!

Agree 100%…don’t think we should frame it as testing governance which in my opinion most people don’t care about.

It’s about rewarding and attracting short-term stakers which I’m not sure these rates achieve.

I do think it would be good to attract short-term stakers from exchanges who technically still own those tokens and could potentially use them and their voting power in a negative way.

However, I agree people aren’t staking on exchanges for voting power.

Imagine giving exchanges holding millions (10s of millions?) of tokens more voting power for staking short-term.


Just a small nit @mechaquan,

From the proposal posted:

I want @nikhil.ranjan to gut check me and confirm, but I believe his intent could be reduced to:

  1. We want more people staking and participating
  2. We do not want to cause more inflation
  3. He asked around and found people were interested in staking but were dissuaded by the hurdles and mechanics.
  4. Nikhil wants to address the mechanics so more people experiment… but wants to have a minimal reward footprint.

So in short, it is partly letting people play or “try out” governance, with some small probability that some people stake at sub-6 months, happy with the lower rates.


Exchanges don’t actually stake the tokens, they lend them out so traders can borrow them with futures, for this reason there is no way the NNS can offer short time stakers a competitive APY without substantially increasing the yearly inflation.

1 Like

Eventually some one will offer liquid staking like lido

Ok if they aren’t now then isn’t it reasonable to think they might if they could for <30 days?!

Doubt, the premium for lending tokens is way more than the APY for 30 days staking.

My view on this is that people can easily test with 1 ICP for 6 months.

However my suspicion is that most people are more interested in staking for rewards and not governance.

The hurdles I suspect are having to vote to get rewards…

I don’t mean to discount this view (you may be right!).

I just wanted to help explain Nikhil’s intent so his proposal can be properly evaluated.

1 Like

Not much of an hurdle, you just have to set up the neuron once, what’s problematic is historically price has been dumping so many don’t want to lock the tokens for a low APY which could get lower in a matter of hours.


Good point. A friend did tell me this once but wasn’t sure how real this was as driver, so didn’t mention it in earlier comments.

There is a huge demographic of people that hate exchanges and don’t want to keep their money there.

But also they don’t want to own a token that doesn’t pay passive income.

But also don’t want to be locked in for 6 months.

This demographic is what we capture here


What I like most: I believe it is well thought out and I prefer it be left alone
What I like least is what is being proposed.
You don’t have to stake to own a neuron and you can still vote and make proposals from memory.

Like joining the gym and then saying aww do I have to exercise to get fit

Should’ve added liquidity as a hurdle too…which is my point on previous comments. People don’t care about governance…they care about rewards and being able to access funds in a relatively short period of time ~30 days.

Full disclosure I have my ICP locked for 8 years and I manually vote daily.