Not entirely a bad idea, but even if it is allowed, the voting power would be pretty insignificant (I believe), but earing something is better than earning nothing. However, i feel they should not earn rewards unless they are staking for 6 months.
1 Like
Is that adjusted for spam proposals?
1 Like
Iâm not an expert in Securities, but Iâm pretty sure this would hurt ICP severely on the Howey Test.
The SEC could argue that ICP isnât purely a governance/utility token by making this change. Since short-term staking rewards wouldnât be reliant on governance participation, it would mean that short-term staking would be profiting on the future work of others with the expectation of monetary gain since governance wouldnât be the objective for short term staking. Even if this werenât entirely true, it opens the door for the SEC to make that argument, which I really do not like.
5 Likes
I recently left DFINITY as an engineer, and now Iâm contributing to this forum as a stakeholder and community member only. I think we should encourage staking and voting by more participants, on simple terms.
5 Likes
When I finally set up an account on the NNS I felt like a weirdo and did what others did and transferred 1 ICP from my coin account and wanted to check out the NNS for the first time. It took me a week to get the feel and understand the different screens.
I found the documentation on Internet Computer Wiki
Here I found the official document to explain each button and the pages.
I was uncertain about the Neurons page and what I would do about setting a time delay. At first I set up the stake for a couple of days after the 6 month Dissolve Delay. From there I started to play with the Staked period and watched the adjustments made to The Voting Power. I also set up the Following Neuron Holders Selection but never started the Start Dissolving Button.
I had the choice then to start dissolving and wait for the dissolve period to end and by then I figured that I could even double my investment by the end if I had decided not to continue.
I decided to add 100s more to that same neuron and have followed the forum for more information and insight to Governance.
People who have spammed on the NNS have shown me that you can set up a neuron in my opinion with 1 ICP without a stake could then create a proposal that looks like a team proposal summary with code that could be damaging to the NNS or create a situation where they can write a proposal that earns many rewards for their other neurons that is clearly a spam.
I am still not sure if all proposal summaries are checked by a team member before the proposal is accepted by the community for damaging code before it is updated to the NNS or it is just updated because of the acceptance by all the community.
When I see someone say letâs try a lower minimum stake period and see how it goes, like flying by the seat of my pants compared to the highly educated team of Dfinity, mmm.
For these reasons I will not accept any changes to the minimin staked period and have given my concerns about those who want to weaken the already well thought out Governance in place and will reject this proposal.
3 Likes
- I agree on the premise, not sure about the execution, here is why:
Say a DAO is designing a staking mechanism and decides to start with 8 years lockups only, after a while things arenât going good, so itâs proposed to lower the minimum lockup time to 7 years, now the DAO has to trade a % of the stake reserved for 8 year lockups to attract more stakers.
Vote passes and it proves to be succesful so another proposal is made: lower minimum lockup time to 6 years, rinse and repeat. What Iâm trying to say is everytime the DAO makes this trade, they decide to cut a % from the existing lockup tranches to attract new stakers, assuming the DAO is looking for price appreciation of the asset and functioning governance, at some point this trade wonât be worth it anymore.
Why do I think the trade isnât worth it now:
Existing stakers already have a variable (90% likely to worse due to lower inflation and potential new stakers) and low APY on an asset that has historically performed badly, cutting yet another slice from already existing small pie really has to be worth it. From a financial point of view itâs worth it as long as staking provides some form of deflation to the circulating supply, now whatâs this point? 6/3/1 month? Weeks? Days? Depends on who you ask, in my opinion not lower than 3 months. Maybe @Kyle_Langham could give us his opinion on this.
- What I was referring to was an old topic of discussion: Proposal to Change Dissolve Delay Bonus and Age Bonus Parameters by @wpb
I donât have anything to propose at the moment, tokenomics for me are a sacred aspect of the protocol and I donât have a background in economics or things of this kind, but I think changes should be rare and very well considered in all aspects, the data provided by @nikhil.ranjan seems incomplete from what I see, where would the new rewards come from if the exisiting tranches are unchanged?
4 Likes
Do you remember what those were or have a link you can share? Would be interesting to hear Dfinityâs opinion at the time on the matter.
After the implementation of this proposal, the reward multiplier for neurons locked for 3 months is 0.5 and the reward multiplier for neurons locked for 8 years is 2?
I agree with this proposal, but I will start reducing my neuron dissolve delay
Unless the community fund brings a surprise
Hi John, who is the principal software engineer in charge of your previous position at DFINITY right now ?
3 Likes
And Iâm saying that 0.43% to 1.73% ROI with voting power isnât going to do that.
I think we are severely overestimating how many people want to participate in governance.
1 Like
If you are worried about relying on the future work of others than you need to be pushing for the decentralisation of the development work because that is literally the future work of others that you are dependent on for future success.
I hardly think voting on mostly spam proposals constitutes as working for your rewards especially if you are just following other neurons.
1 Like
Iâm just using the percentage provided in the proposalâŚthe point is itâs likely a lot of money for someone who is risk adverse to locking up for 6 months with very little return on a 1 year investment.
I would literally get a better return on my bank savings account with better liquidity an little risk of my asset losing value.
1 Like
I will probably vote NO, because I think if somebody wants to âtry out the governance processâ they can stake just 1 ICP for 6 months and try as long as they want risking a couple of bucks.
PS: I would disagree with the maturity argument: AFAIK you can merge any amount of maturity, so you clearly can see how your ICP-stake is growing.
5 Likes
To the SEC itâs black and white, staking with no obligations for payment is a trait of a security and there isnât any way around that. As long as voting is involved then you are part of the work and you get around that part of the Howey Test.
this is a good point and below is my quantification of the impact of this proposal on the overall average APY.
Summary
- The overall average APY would change from 15.72% to 15.46%.
- Approx 2m out of 116mn daily rewards (i.e. 1.7%) would be allocated to neurons with dissolve delay < 6 months. â The overall impact is relatively small.
Made assumptions
- An additional 27mn (24mn dissolving, 3mn non-dissolving) of staked ICP becomes eligible for voting/rewards (same assumption as you).
- This results in an additional voting power of 14mn. This is based on neuron data pulled today from the dashboard API, ignoring any age bonus (which would only affect the small porting of non-dissolving neurons).
- I assume that only 50% of these neurons will vote on governance topics (to which the majority of rewards is allocated in the moment). This corresponds to the current relationship of active voting power vs total voting on the IC.
Calculation with data as of June 8th
| Current APY | |
|---|---|
| Total voting power | 412,748,849 |
| Daily voting rewards | 115,547 |
| Total staked | 268,403,486 |
| Current APY - Annualized voting rewards as % of total staked | 15.72% |
| New APY | |
|---|---|
| Staked ICP in neurons with dissolve delay < 6 months | 27,000,000 |
| New voting power | 14,000,000 |
| Assumed percentage of actively voting neurons | 50% |
| New active voting power | 7,000,000 |
| New active voting power as % of current total voting power | 1.70% |
| New total voting power | 419,748,849 |
| Daily voting rewards for neurons with dissolve delay < 6 months | 1,927 |
| New APY - Annualized voting rewards for neurons with dissolve delay < 6m as % of staked amount | 2.61% |
| New APY - Annualized voting rewards for neurons with dissolve delay >= 6m as % of staked amount | 15.46% |
4 Likes
I think this proposal is a waste of time and energy for very little if any gain. Also who the hell wants to buy into and stake a coin thatâs losing like 25%+ each month to get rewarded 2%.
Focus on fixing problems that actually matter first like getting more icp burned so the price stops bleeding that will get you way more participation than this proposal. Lol
5 Likes
Across the years, John worked on many parts of the stack. Currently, there are three other principal engineers at Dfinity, plus a few principal researchers and staff level engineers.
More concretely, I believe (John can correct me here), Johnâs last projects were around the Interface Spec and working on formal verification. Both of those projects were absorbed by the formal verification team (which consists of 3-5 people, depending on the project). John also spent the last few months helping NNS team and that work has been absorbed by the quickly-growing NNS team.
4 Likes
It seems that Dom set the rules, and the tokens performance is not good enough till now, and someone want to break the rules? damn it, I think 6 months is a good idea. just one year and most ppl lose confidence? Let it work some more time like 4 years?
2 Likes