[Proposal] Reducing minimum staking time for expanding governance participation

The potential risk has always been there, I think what happened on the 31st December scared away lots of potential stakers, with DeFi and Liquidity pools coming holders would rather get APY there with less restrictions than by staking in the NNS, cause truth be told spam proposals are the only thing making staking worthwhile at the moment.

1 Like

I doubt most would give up 10% APY on Binance for 1.73% out of principle.

4 Likes

Best time to be involved and buying right and I say this because of the project and not FOMO or any other fears.

Thank you. This is helpful!

I don’t think it’s really fair to say people don’t care about governance. I care about governance a lot and if I could see myself staking smaller amounts just to participate. I also like this option because I’m currently sitting on some unstaked tokens that I’d rather earn some interest on while I wait to see where the market goes

2 Likes

I’m currently sitting on some unstaked tokens that I’d rather earn some interest on while I wait to see where the market goes

That’s what I don’t like about this proposal, staking ICP should be a commitment not something you do while waiting for a better opportunity.

1 Like

Why? If I’m participating by voting why does it matter?

1 Like

My comment is on the target market of this proposal…those not currently staking on the NNS. They don’t care about governance. If they did they’d be staking on the NNS. They care about APY and liquidity.

I also have idle ICP sitting on the NNS and that’s why I’d be in favor of some rewards but not voting power for it.

1 Like

Why is it ok for me to look for a better opportunity in 6 months - 8 years but not in 7 days? Or are you suggesting no one should dissolve ever?

1 Like

But my understanding of the target audience was simply individuals who wanted to participate but didn’t want to commit to 6 months. I do believe these individuals exist and I don’t see how providing this option hurts anyone or anything given the proposed linear change

For the reasons I stated above, NNS is based on this risk/reward balance and tokenomics are helped by the reduced circulating supply, “earn some interest on while I wait to see where the market goes” goes against those principles, let’s leave this mentality to stablecoin stakers.

Yearly inflation is a price every ICP holder pays out of his own pocket to have a functioning governance system, we should use it in the best way possible instead of gifting it to stakers who only want to earn interest while waiting for better opportunities.

1 Like

I still fail to see how this proposal goes against this. The second linear slope seems to balance this risk reward sufficiently

I’m not saying stakers should never dissolve, just that there is a pretty big difference between getting your money back in 6 months/8 years and 7 days, the former is something you do if you truly believe in the projects long term success, the latter is something everyone would do cause why would you say no to free money?

But the rewards are proportionally reduced. So I’m not understanding the issue. For example, 7 days is practically 0

Yeah this is where we differ…I don’t think those people should get to participate in governance but they should get a small reward, relatively, for staking on the NNS and helping to secure the network like every other PoS.

Think I’m probably somewhere in between you and @Zane

Maybe I’m wrong. But it seems like everyone is simply taking issue with the concept of rewarding short term (non-committed) stakers without considering the actual risk/reward being proposed.

See it this way, I’d have to trust a project quite a bit to lock my tokens for 6 months in it, the IC is the only one I believe in enough to convince me to do such a thing, 7 days on the other hand is a short period of time, I’d lock all my crypto holdings for that amount of time even if it gave 0.1%, after all its free money. So instead of rewarding actual believers in the project, we rewards randoms who got nothing better to do with their tokens for the time being, even if it’s 0.5%, I believe those tokens could be better used.

Idk. I’d rather have these randos tokens locked in the NNS for 7 days rather than sitting on the exchange contributing to the circulating supply. That’s not my primary motivation but it is a positive in my mind

1 Like

On behalf of @nikhil.ranjan I can confirm that this is the intent of this proposal.

As rightly pointed by different community members there are multiple potential ways to achieve this goal. These could include expanding educational activities on the benefits of staking, promoting staking with 1 ICP, reducing minimum staking time etc.

The presented proposal is our hypothesis on what will drive the maximum impact. Based on our discussions (anecdotal) we found that there are several people that are sitting on the sidelines due to 6 month minimum lockup requirement. We feel shortening the duration will enable them to get some real skin in the game when they start to see accrued rewards (staking 1 ICP wouldn’t really have the same impact).

Our intent of this discussion is to help capture your feedback:
1: Is this an idea even worth considering? (or are there better alternatives)
2: If this is worth a shot what could be the right minimum (1 day, 7 days, 30 days, etc.)? The minimum staking time is absolutely up for discussion.
3: What other challenges do we see (a great point was raised by @Kyle_Langham above regarding the currently dissolving and unclaimed neurons)? Any other such things that we are missing

At the end of the day we hope to learn from the community feedback and iterate on the proposal as needed before taking it up for voting.

4 Likes

In my opinion if we care about IC’s success we should look into better rewarding long time holders instead of wasting time trying to attract opportunists so we can boast about having a higher % of tokens locked in the NNS, who cares if 99% of tokens are locked if half of it is locked for 7 days?

4 Likes