No clue. Unless DFN was advised that there was some tax advantage of it going into a neuron instead of an ICP address it seems like a wasted(and inconvenient step). For ICDevs I have to redistribute a bunch of 1ICP Neurons constantly. It will be a lot more fun when ICP is at $2000 per ICP because it takes about an hour a week to manage it all. 
3 Likes
Maybe this is because the stake-rewards that are show as Maturity, are not yet minted coins. Maybe (not sure) when we âmerge maturityâ or âspawn a new neuronâ we are minting coins.
If that is the case, maybe this could be automated: When the user choose to transfer Maturity into his Main Wallet, a neuron is automatically spawn and dissolved (even if Maturity turns into less than 1 ICP), and the rewards may reach the main wallet in seven day (the time needed for the dissolve delay).
1 Like
The DD for spawned neurons is 7 days, not 1.
1 Like
edited. one â > seven.
Thanks!
2 Likes
Well done on the deep dive into current neuron staking and dissolving dynamics. I think the most relevant action item is to shorten the length of time required to hit the maximum age bonus as this would appreciably incentive anyone to stay staked regardless of their chosen dissolve delay.
I disagree with the remaining conclusions and action items though for the following reason: I see the biggest threat to the longevity of the internet computer as centralization. The proposal being debated here has been built with the assumption that the biggest threat to the internet computer is a lack of long-term token holders and falling short of having 90% ICP staked. If this proposal were to work as envisioned, then some of the relatively few pre-genesis stake holders would be incentivized into creating 8 year neurons, and the rest would stay the course to cashing in their already long and profitable investment (I have heard it is in the neighborhood of 1000x or 100x, but I donât know that for a fact). I donât think itâs worth it to incentive someone to take on even more risk when they have already enjoyed such a strong return.
I wonder if some of the unspoken assumptions built into the proposal surrounds protecting the short-term price of ICP from pre-genesis neurons dissolving and hitting the market. In the long-term, these concerns do not matter, because the long-term driver of ICP price is usage of the internet computer. In fact, short-term price deflation of ICP I think would help further decentralize the NNS and lead to greater health.
I hope to post more numbers later of what 90% ICP staking would do to the rewards vs the current, because they will drop significantly (splitting the reward pie into 9/5 more pieces), but my initial guess is the 8 year neurons would be marginally better (32% or so) and the lower dissolve delays be much less than current levels. I agree with other posters that the goal is not to make everyone stake for 8 years, but incentivize them to stake for whatever time/risk works for them, especially in such a fast-paced space where years feel more like decades.
6 Likes
Wenzel @wpb , Kyle @Kyle_Langham , Alex @ayjayem
Seems that there is about 25% ICP staked and not dissolving right now. (about 120m)
Can you tell me why we need or wish 90% staking?
What is the goal to increase the staking?
What problem do we have now that more staking would resolve?
I think the answer is to help to higher the ICP price but want make sure before I go forward with my view.
We attempted to provide answers to these questions in the abstract and introduction sections of the article. The arguments we made are based on the state and momentum of governance, not ICP price. I encourage you to read the article for our detailed analysis, problem statement, and proposed solution.
We really appreciate when folks offer their opinions during this deliberation. We made a very specific proposal for a change to solve the problems we identified and we are hopeful that responses that are of a differing opinion will include suggestions that are 1) actionable (e.g. is there a code update that can be readily identified and included in the proposal) and 2) address the stated problems of too much dissolving on the NNS and the risks of conflict-of-interest.
Iâm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
1 Like
Just listen to the conversations on Twitter live! I appreciate that you clarify some of the speakers and questions! 100% yes to this!
3 Likes
Somewhat tangential, but as an 8-year staker, I honestly kinda wished there wasnât a distinction between âdissolvingâ and ânon-dissolvingâ.
It means that my ICP is locked up for longer than 8 years, and I have to make a conscious decision to start dissolving, which is a decision thatâs not easy to makeâŚ
I have no idea if Iâd prefer to get my initial ICP stake back in 8 years or 9 years or 8.3451 years⌠they all sound pretty distant to meâŚ
Some random thoughtsâŚ
- Iâm not really worried about ânefarious neuronsâ who can execute bad governance proposals in order to drive up the short-term ICP price at the expense of the long-term health of the IC. Since 99.99% of us follow DFINITY, their proposals wouldnât pass.
- Iâm much more worried about general apathy. Weâre not at the stage where we need to worry about bad actors (like a Bitcoin or Ethereum); weâre at the stage where we should worry about nobody knowing or caring about the IC. The truth is there are plenty of L1 blockchains and L2 rollups out there, and most people have no idea what the IC is.
Whether apathy is the result of low staking rewards or not Iâm not sure. My guess is no. If someone came up to you and told you you could earn 25% APY, youâd probably look at them with skepticism. If they came back to you and told you you could instead earn 30% APY, I donât think you would change your mind. Marketing, building great dapps⌠these are the things that will move the needle.
10 Likes
Also, Iâm not a fan of increasing the age bonus so much (from 1.25x to 2x).
It means that as soon as you click the âdissolveâ button, your neuronâs age goes to zero and you lose half of your rewards. For an 8-year staker like myself, thatâs a huge drop.
Maybe a neuronâs age bonus should decrease over time once it starts dissolving, instead of losing it all immediately?
5 Likes
I did read (twice) before I asked my questions. Also, want say, just like you, I have bought my ICP after genesis last may and have them all lock in 8 years as well.
Although the whitepaper stated that 90% of ICP should be staked, it does not say that if there is less, problems will arise. They did not said it would be a problem to have less. So, beside to have a low price pressure for few years, I do not see the problem with having less then 90% ICP staked. On top, Dfinity have always stated they will make sure they have less than 50% of voting power then the community to avoid control.
Also, Dfinity have never explained clearly why they assumed 90% should be locked. They never explained what they taught could happen if less are staked. Unless I missed the explanation.
If you see one problem with less then 90%, or I misread your document (sorry English is my second language), your are welcome to share with me.
So may be I can asked different way: What can harm IC if less then 90% of ICP were staked, other then the price?
4 Likes
Iâm a bit confused. Doesnât the age bonus already drop to 0 the moment you hit dissolve?
Edit: never mind I realize what youâre saying now. I donât see the downside tho. Unless you just canât make up your mind about dissolving 
2 Likes
Same as me, I thought his proposal was about the needle (price). @wpb have clearly stated to me that the proposal is not to move the needle up.
âThe arguments we made are based on the state and momentum of governance, not ICP priceâ
1 Like
However, this proposal is intended to move the needle by increasing governance participation.
Well, I did see this hahah
1 Like
YeahâŚjust found the needle within one of @wpb post. But the needle was not mentioned in the medium release.
I am confused nowâŚ
Intended to move the needle or not?
I am 100% with you @jzxchiang . IC needle should be move with apps, marketing, and new unique stuff.
No body cares if front end are on blockchain or not. Criticizing other blockchain will not make IC adoption better. NFTâs have lots of competition. No DEFI yet on IC and lot of competition when it happen. Will be hard (maybe impossible) to move people from Whatsapp or Twitter which have been proven efficient and reliable. Dfinity host his website on cloud. Hard to promote to host yours on IC blockchain.
Will need time and a lot of creativity to move the needle, not a stake reward change.
The good news is that I found IC community , Dfinity team and programmers team to be one of the best , if not the best.
Only my 2 cents though
8 Likes
Hey @coteclaude and @jzxchiang I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opinions. I have a high level of respect for what you have to say.
One detail that seems to have caught your attention was my use of the phrase âmove the needleâ. I never used that phrase in the context of ICP price. That comment was about governance participation. The goal of the our article and the proposal is to change tokenomics parameters in a way that we believe will move us closer to the objectives outlined by Dfinity in the referenced articles.
I will try to do a better job of explaining myself so I donât cause confusion in the future. My apologies.
3 Likes
Most of the early investors of Bitcoin got out when they reached 10X, some 100X and some 1000X at $ 30 or 10000x at $300. It is human nature to get out when they are up that much, and I think that is a good thing, if anything. New people will come. The proposal is an excellent proposal to the point it is only fair to have longer investments to have better terms. Perhaps most importantly, the longest staked holder can only have one motivation, IC, to succeed. For a short therm holder, use your imagination. This proposal provides a better foundation for its future.
9 Likes
Again, I think it is not possible that 8 years stakers donât even earn 2 times the 6 months stakersâ rewards. With such unfair rates, people are not encouraged to stake 8 years, but 6 months ; incentivize is here non efficient.
Let me be clear : My point is not that 8 years stakers should earn 16 times what earn 6 months stakers, but by making them earn not even 2 times what 6 months stakers earn, the long termism is clearly not incentivized, and consequently, the stability of the ecosystem.
Do we really want to take the risk of seeing the Ethereum integration donât pass ?
@wpb, if we only set a new correlation between DD and Voting power as @hpeebles recommends it, would it be enough to solve the lack of security ? Or not ?
2 Likes
How to define unfair? I have staked for 8 years and I think for the current rate, it is fair. Keep the current solution is pretty good. Based on the proposal solution, will be more and more ppl unwilling to stake since only few people would like to stake more than 4 years.
5 Likes
Here is the link to the Google Sheet that is referenced in the article. It should be view only. However, if you make a copy then you will be able to change the parameters highlighted in yellow on the Proposal tab to model different scenarios. There are notes in each cell that describe the parameter. The VRY Distribution tab will show you an overlay plot of current voting reward yield distribution of the Proposal and the Current so you can see how the distribution will change.
3 Likes