there is lots of flaw and especially lack of understand of the tokenomic of the icp by icdev
icdevs did not even understand n differentiate between governance staking and liquidity staking, icdevs even thought that icp that stake within binance were use to stake within NNS
I donāt believe @skilesare was actually on the call when we discussed Binanceās potential use of the NNS
in reality binance pay stakers for liquidity, liquidity staking mechanism is different from the NNS becuase of it powering their derivative businesses exemple earn more commission by selling staker icp to short seller, base on this alone i think icdevs is no capable of making a good judgement in tokenomic design.
im urging the dfinity foundation to please oppose this proposal
I have no idea what you are talking about. Blame active participants? Iām not trying to blame anyone. The vision of the tokenomics was to incentives participation with a 20% rate at 8% at this point. It is at 40% because we broke it not because we decided to make it 40%. If we want to make it 40 in the right way that would be awesome in the short term at least. Iām not so sure in the long term.
check the recording of the space again
actions 4 the goal of actions 4 is to show that passive sleeper aka inactive whales are good while active participant btw have a negative impact toward the icp
there is alots of flaw especially base on the lack of understanding of the tokenomic of the icp by icdevs
base on that i hope and urge dfinity again to oppose this proposal by icdevs
again messing with tokenomic is bad, especially if we do the opposite of what we should do
I very much understand the difference of staking with Binance and the NNS. I left my last company because they made what I considered to be poor decisions with their ICP stack in this regard. Staking through Binance or Galaxy absolutely kills ICP price and if youāre doing it you should strongly reconsider. I also oppose letting retail investors stake into the NNS with via exchanges as I think it gives exchanges too much power.
Iām not sure what I did here to make you so mad. If you are concerned that Iām in favor of cutting your personal gains from 40% to 20%, then please keep in mind that a proposal has already been passed that will do this when it forces people to confirm their neurons. That is going to happen over time anyway.
overall actions 1 is a bad proposal that should be delete
but you said that company like binance is bad since they could infleunce the nns with those liquidity staking like doing like luna nanana/ but in reality liquidity staking is to power their derivative business only.
selling staker icp for higher commission which in turn give back the fee commision in higher yield for staker and its not from locking their icp in nns n cash out to pay for staker
This is generally true when taken in the context of the proposal being considered. For maximum utility in governance, you want the passive supporting the active voter who have the proper context for voting. It is impossible for all voters to have all the context they need to vote on all the issues. The people who have the proper information for what sub-nodes to add to what node pool right now is dfinity. If you are voting on those without the proper context you are harming the network even if you call yourself an āactive voter.ā We should not over-reward negative utility or it will be manifested.
I was not on for that part of the call. I must have missed something or you were mistaking me for someone else. I have not ever loaned my ICP to Binance and I would criticize anyone who did.
the sec is coming, its actually a great risk management beforehand by dfinity to make icp as a governance for active,
Iām sorryā¦I donāt know what this sentence means. Can you elaborate? Who is getting paid commission?
overall tokenomic is not for play, and thereās alots of thing that i think the lack of understanding of the tokenomic of icp by icdevs is on another level n it make it hard for icdevs to make a good proposal