A bit short on time, but I’ll make the following quick comments:
- Does this mean that individual voter rewards will be calculated on the total supply basis being every single ICP ever minted could be staked, or referring to the total supply being the supply of all ICP that has not been burned which could be staked?
I’m pretty sure this is an established ratio in the code. It is a factor of the total supply to the staked ICP. You can see the fraction calculation on ic/governance.rs at 73983e05ebbab239ce39492a05fb39a83ce5dce5 · dfinity/ic · GitHub. I’m not proposing any change to the fraction calculation, only that the fraction that is determined is equal to the “reward rate” in the future calculation. Currently that rate is used to determine the fraction of total supply that should be used as the day reward and I’m proposing that the same fraction be used to calculate an individual neuron’s reward.
How will you sell this to whales in the 8 year gang?
They have as much to gain from a reduction in inflation as anyone. People are prone to focus on “line goes up” and “total icp in my account” is easy to grok. The proposes trading 1 ICP in my account at $8/ICP and declining price vs 0.5 ICP in my account at $8 with increasing price. Of course, it is all relative and there are external forces that make this not a straight line calc. If we can’t get the whales to think about second-order effects then we don’t have much hope of effecting change.
- Instead of the total supply, why not just calculate the voter rewards based on the total supply of staked ICP instead of the total supply of ICP in general? This way, the deflation rate is only based on voters that have staked but are missing rewards instead of based on all tokens in circulation (staked or not).
I’m not sure I’m following you here. The current skew of almost 40% returns for active voters/delegators is an accident of implementation. If you review all the docs from genesis we’re supposed to be at about 20% and decreasing toward 10%(for 8 year gang). Once re assign neurons happens we will all start approaching that rate anyway. This proposal offers a reduction in inflation on the way to full reassignment(which I do not think we will reach).
A) It will lower rewards that are currently accessible to NNS participants that vote on Governance topics. How to convince people it is the right answer?
If we are doing 55651 then we are headed there anyway. This gets us there with less inflation. Seems like an easy argument if people will consider second order effects.
B) In the current form, I think this will create a new spam incentive that doesn’t exist today. That spam incentive is to submit a governance proposal for the purpose of decreasing inflation. Some people seems to be very concerned about inflation and may submit proposals to prevent inactive voters from getting their fraction of the pie that would normally be available to them on days when there is not naturally a governance proposal.
I agree this is an issue. The question is will there be less incentive? Reduced inflation doesn’t increase the number of ICP in your account in such a direct way, so perhaps it is less of an incentive? People are jerks, so I don’t doubt their capacity spam for spite, but I think it will be better than what we have right now.
I’m leaning toward agreeing that action 1 is a good idea that improves the NNS and is in the long term best interest of the IC, but I think it still requires proposal 55651 to be effective and I don’t think action 2 or 4 are the best solutions. At this time, I would vote yes if action 1 is submitted independently, but I would vote no if actions 2 and 4 are also included.
I agree about 55651 being complementary, but you’re more bullish on how much effect it will actually have. I think it will take a long time for those neurons to catch up.
We can certainly get rid of 4 as they are just there for context.
2 is a more quickly implementable version of @justmythoughts and @lastmjs 's proposal for incubation periods. I would think if you are in favor of those that you’d be in favor of this as it is a one-week project vs a one-quarter project(and in DFINITY time those time periods can be…maybe extended?..sometimes?)