A motion has been submitted to the NNS to Postpone for 6 Months the Proposal to Change Dissolve Delay Bonus and Age Bonus Parameters. Please go vote and help spread the word.
Check details and results for this vote:
https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/32056
8 year Staker here,
thanks to icp/dfnity that topics are discussed and resolved via a voting system
whatever is decided should stay in place for a min of, lets say 2 years before an other voting is permitted on this topic, to keep stability and avoid community break down
what is the goal now for this organization / project
A) we want to have as many ppl stake as possible
B) we want a decent return for Max risk takers
C) tokenomics that attract more investors
D) we want to sustain staked participants and reduce the dissolve of neurons in Years to come as much as possible
The question we have to ask ourselves now, can all 4 be achieved at the same time, or do we have to look at the age of icp and say we currently have to focus on A) and revisit B) C) and D) in a few years to come. And that’s what I currently think. Ofc I want max rewards as a 8 year starker (since I am one I would smile with each reward increase voted upon for this period), but right now, attracting new staking participants is what we need to focus on, I believe.
Also, Someone who is convinced to stake a short period now, will be much easier convinced to extend the dissolve the Delay on the Future. Especially when the organization has proven itself, it is here to stay
As the burning rate starts to increase in the future with more and more developers having to buy canisters with ICP, the metrics will change and we will have to re-evaluate the staking rewards once again in any case. Or long term stakers get their turn and have their returns increased perhaps, who knows.
On a side note, short period stakers and long term stakers returns, the community will always fight about what feels fair and righteous, this Will never be solved and will always be a discussion we have to deal with.
Thanks so much for opening this topic.
The Motion to Postpone for 6 Months the Proposal to Change Dissolve Delay Bonus and Age Bonus Parameters has passed by the rules of Simple Majority. Thank you for your participation in this deliberation, promotion, and voting. No formal proposal on this topic will be submitted to the NNS for 6 months as decided by the governing body. As suggested by cycle_dao, this will give the IC community more time to deliberate and collect/model more data so the proposal can be made based on conditions in 6 months.
In the coming days I will work with @Kyle_Langham and @ayjayem so we can summarize our thoughts on the deliberation and the proposal topic.
Thanks again for all your participation in this deliberation and governance decision. I think this motion proposal has demonstrated true decentralized governance with an active community that cares about the long term best interest of the Internet Computer. This is the stated intent of Dfinity foundation in their tokenomics design, published documentation, and social media presence and it seems to be working. I am very encouraged by this governance process and very impressed with the intellectual honesty that has come from the IC community and Dfinity foundation in support of this system.
Great job Wenzel! You, Kyle, and Alex should all be very proud. This is the first community-driven proposal and I think the process played out perfectly.
Congrats, folks! So amazing to see this come together.
What do you want to do? Dislike that the interest rate on nns is too low to attract new people to join? Is this the problem? If you increase the income of the pledge cycle for 8 years by 8 times, it is simply a practice of drinking poison to quench your thirst. Attracting new people to pledge should lower the threshold, not increase the income.…
What a great example of community governance on the IC! Thank you everyone for participating, it has been really joyful to see this.
Hi, I am not native english so, sorry I have not been able to find the information. How is it possible to be rewarded of 30% per year if there is a limited supply of ICP ? What did i miss ?
This is the article that describes the voting reward supply, how voting rewards are distributed in proportion to voting power, what affects voting power, and the overall objective of NNS governance and the tokenomics design.
thank you, i am going to read this now
Подскажите хотел стейкать 10 Icp во время подтерждения транзакции выключили свет icp ушли. их нет не в стейкинге не на кошельке
I think that the issue is a lack of trust in the IC which in part comes from a lack of audience aware education. It’s impossible to lock up capital in a system that you don’t trust. Additionally, DFINITY has a history of seriously disregarding the needs of token holders so that is a further trust issue. There is a general belief that a group of insiders have an information advantage over the rest of the market. People in the investment space have indicated that they don’t have the information they need to make an investment in ICP. Part of this is confusing token economics, but there are a lot of other reasons. Ultimately, we are going to be in this holding pattern with limited interest in Liquid ICP or staking ICP until the market’s information requirements have been met. I have a post coming soon on this subject. When these requirements are met, token holder behaviour will change drastically. This was part of my personal objection to @wpb and co’s proposal. In 6 months the climate will be very different 
agree with this, I was going to try to explain to a few family member who no nothing about crypto how to stake ICP on the NNS app, but in the end I just gave up, there where just too many steps to explain.
Sorry to everyone for sidetracking the discussion, but what do you mean when you say: “People in the investment space have indicated that they don’t have the information they need to make an investment in ICP”? Are you saying that the IC is so complex they don’t fully understand how it works? Or are you saying that they think there is some relevant piece of information that they believe that dfinity has withheld?
Wenzel, good work on this proposal. I think the tokenomics can surely use tweaking to engage greater participation. When do you have an expected date with an updated proposal to review prior to submitting the proposal to the NNS?
It’s 5 months later, is there an update to this thread
Think about this : If someone has a 8 year neuron locked, another has 6 month neuron locked. And the 8 year neuron start dissolving but the 6 years neuron loked remans undissolved for 10 years. Which ones has done better for the ecosystem ? 8 year locked has contributed to a higher inflation. So the problem is not 8 years or 6 month DD. In fact the 6 month DD that stays for years in this condition will do better for the ecosystem than a 8 years locked that add higher inflation with his double reward. What is really important then is the age bonus.
I don’t know or found the answer to this question?
After I have staked for 8 years without dissolving what happens!
Is my stake over and I receive my stake back or do I have to dissolve for a period of time?
The dissolve period is basically like an “egg timer.” If you have an 8 year dissolve, that means your “egg timer” is 8 years. If you start it now, it will go off in 8 years… and then the NNS will allow you to disburse the ICP within it.
Inversely, if you don’t start dissolve process now, nothing happens. Either now or in 8 years.
Was that helpful?
This topic thread and the resulting actions are exactly why voting on governance proposals is primarily a waste of time.
Look at the number of responses above that took hours and hours of collective time to write, plus the collective time that it took everyone to vote on this, and all governance proposals.
With no enforcement mechanisms, governance proposals are an expensive way of polling the NNS community.
We’ve collectively sent out temperature checks, public service announcements, 5-year roadmaps, feature ideas, names neuron proposals, and everyone’s favorite…spam.