most of stake reward btw were all back into lock and compounding interest so inflation, mass new circulating supply that cause by reward incentivize going into the exchange that u mentioned were not real at all
blaming active participant on that just to get actions 1 pass n try to make inactive whales happy is not fair
we new but we learn so the negative impact that u said will overtime decrease
The NNS community did move the cheese quite a bit ( including the head spinning staked icp/ staked maturity/maturity bit).
But this is like saying someone missed all the amendments from 1776 , woke up in 2022 and thought that certain unsavory aspects (i.e. what the 13 amendment specifically prohibits) of our (US) history were still valid.
Havent we provided them with enough time to see that the times have changed? What are the specific guard-rails that we must adhere to ensure that they ARE cut , if they dont vote , after the network has stabilized. What is the measure of network stability would be acceptable?
1 Like
Of course it is. And it is still incentivized. We can argue whether 20% + less inflation = 40% + more inflation if we want, but it is incredibly disingenuous to say that Iām trying to attack small retail #8yeargang (of which I am one). I am more interested in my ICP being worth 4x more dollars each than having an extra 20% of them this year. You are completely failing to acknowledge second-order effects of less inflation. We can argue and analyze those effects with real data only if we acknowledge that they exist.
I would not have put this forward if I didnāt think there was a large set of potential future universes where paying #8yeargang (relatively)less rewards (but inactive whales much much less rewards) resulted in a higher token price because most of the reduced inflation comes at the expense of inactive voters. @Kyle_Langham could probably speak more to the magnitudes of this, but I would think that if we have 233M Circulating, and we cut the total issued rewards by 40M over the next year that it might have a positive impact on price and could have a significant impact on price.
people from dfinity would cash out their token if we upsetting them? isnt that the meaning you try to scare us here n you also said this on the space too if im not wrong (ticking time bomb) i thought they were just abunch of normal fund manager but it actually people within the foundation, oh my god
that mean they do not care about the icp at all?
You completely misunderstand this proposalā¦what in the world makes you think this proposal makes inactive whales happy? They are getting fewer rewards! They obviously arenāt paying attention and everyone benefits from either reduced inflation or sending the balance to a community fund for future development.
they would cash out all their stake (ticking time bomb) u said this
n that was the reason why u came up with abunch of proposal to topple all current tokenomic?
This is a worthwhile consideration, imo. But also imo ,defending someone because they are ignorant about the current rules is not.
Secondly as i alluded to earlier, some of the reduced inflation will come because of this staked maturity/staked icp/maturity.
I am in favor of action 1 because i think it will generally aid the inflation issue even more.
1 Like
The initial ecosystem of investors in Dfinity. Many worked at DFINITY, many used to work at dfinity and are still friendly with the ecosystem, many are seed/angel investors with long-term positive views of the project as long as they feel they are being given a fair shake. Have you been paying attention to turnover at the foundation at all? Most folks who have left have gone to continue working on the tech elsewhere and build up the ecosystem(this is good for ICP!). But that is a fragile thing and implying that people that who were relying on the liquid democracy to work as advertised are somehow not entitled to the then advertised rewards seems like a bad externality to have in the ecosystem. I donāt thing this proposal builds up or protects those inactive voters at all, but Iāve seen other sentiments that seem to imply that that support in the past is now worthless and I feel that it still has significant value. Weāre fine to disagree on that point, but we do disagree.
If you look at my history Iāve been incredibly consistent in trying to lobby to return to the initial tokenomics situation before it was fiddled with. Are you pro changing tokenomics or anti changing econcomis, because the current economic are only a couple months old and have resulted in unforeseen consequences?
2 Likes
but it was also dfinity who also support the incentivation policy n try to make it more as governance token by incentivize active participant
i want the decentralization of the network n push the NNS into the active base governance system,
reward incentivize, new distribute token to new and small retail is essential for network adoptions,
legitimization of the icp is depend on both network adoptors n dfinity
I think they made a mistake and would take a different path with hindsight. Changing the weights was the wrong decision. It increased participation, but there were better ways to do it(See #5 of Action 4: Decentralization of the network has long-term positive utility and thus a system for measuring the diversification and overall voting power of a Neuronās followeeās should be explored and the network should consider reward bonuses or restrictions on neurons that over-centralize their neuron following graph.)
2 Likes
so we no longer need to be a governance base token? go full securities? since i think it was dfinity idea that try to protect the icp from the sec just in case (risk management)
if core dfinity were the one who back n wanted you to represent n propose this idea to go full passive/ securities then i will support