Action 2 - Restrict reward qualification to a Threshold and implement an “accept quorum” for proposals.
To my understanding this is a variation of the idea voting in stages, which was also assessed here. Main benefits are positive impact on Efficient & scalable and Purposeful - mitigating bad content. Is this a fair conclusion ?
Action 3. Reduce the ICP proposal Rejection cost back to 1.
- Purposeful: Bad content → Worsening. Lowering the proposal cost to 1 ICP makes it is easier to submit not purposeful/bad content.
- Neutral on the other goals.
1 Like
My issue , per se, is not about the principle/s of action 1. I agree with the principle/s.
But action 1 states “A result of this proposal will be the reduction in total inflation of ICP due to the fact that some voters do no vote on all proposals or follow a voter for all proposals”.
After proposal 48623 is implemented, even when some voters vote (and decide to compound automatically), there is no immediate inflation of ICP…only staked maturity is increased. Further for some time till ICP is exhausted in the neuron, even disbursement of maturity ( as distinguished from disbursement of staked maturity) will not cause immediate ICP inflation.
If the neurons with staked maturity start dissolving, at the point of dissolution, there will be inflation of ICP EVEN IF that neuron does not vote. This is because staked maturity will be converted into newly minted ICP at the point of dissolution.
So accordingly some of calculations/assumptions ought to be clarified in the details.
3 Likes
Actions 1 was made to disincentivize and push active holder out of the NNS, outflow is imminent.
Good intentions lead to hell, better encourage our existed network participant to buy ICP out of exchange with an attractive policy instead of revenge n pushing them out.
Interest rate at all time high, lowering minted rate = mass liquidity outflow/ cuz crypto is worse than emerging market alr, who gonna stay with us when u can earn up to 10 to 20percent elsewhere with stable less volatiles assets.
we shouldn’t worry much about inflation if u have a mass liquidity inflow cuz those inflow gonna locked n compound if we got an attractive policy to get our existed top tier fund to sucking up all ICP out of exchange. 20percent minted supply at 50 to 60 USD per coin and now it’s at 7 to 8 n there’s people think it’s high hmmm
Actions 1 = anchor protocol 2.0/ messing with tokenomic is bad for the protocol especially doing the opposite of what we should do
Whales, financial analyst at dfinity please rethink before make a decision to support this kind of proposal,
We already know what icdevs is after already since they try to use BIG MACRO event to blame on active participants, I bet that they not gonna stop even after actions 1 passed/
I would personally like to see more tools built on ICP instead of tweaking the tokenomics every other week
2 Likes
Exactly but Atleast icdev should make the ux NNS usable first before dropping any bomb on the governance 
1 Like
end goal of @skilesare is clear (from 1:03:53) protecting inactive whales to maximize their reward/ isnt that also against the foolcourt decentralize liberal principle? sounded like a double standard to me.
I believe that is misrepresentation of the discussion. I advise people to listen to the discussion and decide for themselves.
FWIW - TFC is intended to be a community driven DAO made up of diverse opinions. We want to promote open discussions from all stakeholders and appreciate all viewpoints. Hearing different perspectives is how we grow as a community.
i like the foolcourt n admired the people that behind it but please boycott the actions 1 of sir skillshare
totally against the principle of decentralization of the network and pushing the icp into securities type of token and especially against the core design of icp by dfinity
I don’t want to maximize their reward, I just don’t want them to cut and run before the network is stabilized. My proposal clearly doesn’t maximize their rewards. It encourages them to participate or risk being diluted.
You have to take reality into consideration. These investors aren’t medieval lords sitting on the output of their serfs, they are visionary investors that gave Dom cash when he was drawing the IC on a napkin. It would be as foolish to assume they are adversaries as it would to not put facilities in place to dilute them if they don’t stay engaged in the process/vision.
@skilesare sounded more like a statement to me just right before the end of the space.
but now they dont care about the icp
actions 1 again shouldnt be on the NNS
This is a bit rich as I’m just proposing that we stabilize rewards to what they were before we started messing with weights and tokenomics. I’m 100% in favor of returning to day 1 tokenomics with no fiddling. The community has voted that they want weights. If you want weights and not spam then you need a solution. If you are concerned that we need 40% rate to attract investors, that is a totally valid argument to make, but it is a different issue.