If you look at the charts in the article, it is very clear that the genesis group overwhelms the post-genesis group in most metrics.
If their neurons dissolve and they sell, we can get that ICP into the hands of more committed users who are much more likely to lock it up into 8 year neurons, as evidenced by the fact that most new neurons are 8 year locked neurons.
Where can I find this data? I couldn’t find it in OP’s post.
If the price is low, then many more people can get exposure to ICP and start to materially participate in governance.
I’m not sure this is true. Ironically, in investing if the price is high more people will want to buy it.
Now that I think about it, I feel like for an early-stage, ambitious project like the IC, highly committed advocates (i.e. 8 year stakers) are actually way more valuable than casual supporters (i.e. <1-2 year stakers).
Highly committed advocates do your marketing, they build your dapps, they grow your ecosystem, they make proposals like this and discuss them on forums like this. We need more highly committed advocates if this project is to realize the potential we all think it has.
Casual supporters are mostly bystanders who treat ICP as another slice in their portfolio with a “wait and see” approach. There’s more of them so it may seem like having them “decentralizes” the voter base, but in reality these people just follow DFINITY and nothing else (i.e. that’s not decentralized). Only highly committed advocates take the time to read and think about proposals like this.
If we agree that we want more highly committed advocates at this stage in the IC’s development, then the question is: will bigger long-term rewards lead to more highly committed advocates?