This could be easily gamed, I also dont see why stakers should be penalized if they want to support named neurons known to always vote in the best interest of the network.
Also, about action 1, we have to consider that, given the discussion on the internet identity vulnerability, a lot of people have set up their neurons to follow one neuron (even of theirs sometimes) just to avoid to authenticate too much and then avoid the 30 minutes window of attackability that Timo talked about :
So we canāt force these people to authenticate to manually vote and earn maximum voting rewards. Because even an omniscient person could use the possibility of following a neuron just to secure his/her ICP.
Yes I think this is a fair point, i.e. we should consider whether we can separate more firmly the spam prevention from the actual voting & their rewards.
Btw: Apart from the (unfortunately big) side-effect I found your proposal quite elegant.
Thank you for the pointer and let me have a look.
As an addendum to Action 1, Iād propose the following for discussion:
Instead of having the āforfeitedā inflation not be minted, have it minted to some kind of quadratic funding mechanism like bitcoin uses that can deploy that ICP to projects in dao-based grant cycles. To offset the incentive to spam to fund the fund, DFINITY can daily propose a governance proposal to award the ānon-activeā voting pool to the funding DAO. One proposal a day offsets most of the skew. I donāt think it can be completely eliminated while we have weighting. Weād need to figure out the exact process for submitting to this fund, but with what gitcoin has done I think there is probably a good bit of prior art. It also doesnāt have to be a developer fund, but I think that building out infrastructure for the network is something that would find broad alignment. Open to other suggestions.
1 Like
Topple all tokenomic just to get all those suppose non minted token to be minted and send it all to icdevs organization, ok
Community fund is on the way for that already, why using socialist type of system to implement within the NNS, the DAO should be fund by it adoptors, investors rather than monopolize n fund by the head of states
1 Like
Iām so confused right now first misleading us to believe that Dfinity insider were the one behind him n try to scare us about upsetting inactive whales causing another collapse of the price, talking about inflations which is nowhere to be found if majority of reward when back to the NNS while also incentivize new inflow and now wanted Dfinity to spam n benefit his organization, 
The goal of icdevs here is to fight n oppose active ICP believer like polychain, electric capital, Warburg serres, active 8years gang ok now I got it
Btw Totalitarian non free entreprise of icdevs is dangerous for the ICP even tho it came with the good intentions since they try to do everything they can to topple all the system that is done by Dfinity,
@wpb #dfinitycore #activewhales please make a good judgement on that, we believe in you guys
Iāve tried to engage in good faith here, but Iām about at the end my rope with you. Your arguments are in bad faith and youāre making affirmative statements rooted in some false narrative you have in your head.
In trying to align the IC for maximum utility because I think that will drive value. Iām absolutely considering all participants and considering what keeps them engaged and working for the network. If you are not then you are acting in bad faith and have some delusion that excluding participants makes the network stronger.
The community fund(of which we know very little at this point) is absolutely a valid discussion point for this topic, but layering on socialism and totalitarianism is, again, in bad faith. The community fund, once we know the full extent, is likely the best target here. Iām a big fan of the quadratic funding mechanism put forth by gitcoin and I think it increases optionality, exposure to positive black swans, and gives those with fewer resources but better ideas a leveler playing field to succeed. If the community fund is going to implement something like that then Iām all for it. If it is going to distribute purely on monetary strength Iām less bullish, but it would still be better than nothing.
My personal opinion is that I have far more to gain from incentives going into development for the next couple of years than I do from an increased percentage of rewards. Youāre welcome to argue with that point if you can do so from a position of good faith.
It is 100% within the mission of ICDevs.org to promote developers and to work toward providing resources to advance the tools and technologies they have to work with. Iāll not apologize at all for doing so. I am in no way advocating that the ICP should be allocated to the ICDevs organization, although I would assume that we would be helping developers apply and execute against grants from the funds and that would be a successful execution of the mission.
My only interest in whales and their engagement in the network is short-term until the network reaches adequate enough decentralization to not need the financial stability that their passive stake currently provides the network. The actual execution of the IC is not yet equal to the ideal of the IC, and ignoring this point is asking for the experiment to be attacked and destroyed by those seeking solely self-serving profit.
ICDevs.org has almost 100% of our assets in an 8-year staked neuron and demands from our board that 66% of every inflow must go into an 8-year staked neuron. We are 100% aligned with the long-term well-being of the network and to state otherwise is to do so in bad faith.
Iām not a fan of putting words in peopleās mouths, but I donāt think Iām crossing a line by saying that almost without exception any #dfinitycore or #activewhale would at worst agree that this issue is worth discussing in good faith to determine why it is/isnāt a good solution and using that data as an input to a new and better solutionā¦and I think youād be shocked at how many might think it should actually be executed in some form. If you feel you have data or a good faith argument as to why it should be set aside and a different direction taken then please offer itā¦again in good faith. Your current approach is doing nothing but running valid contributors off who may have the perfect solution for spam vs incentivization with your bad faith and hostile attitude.
To put it another way, your current approach is a net negative to the value of ICP and the IC network and unless you can change the way you engage with others, weād all be better off if you didnāt contribute. I appreciate your passion and share some of the underlying themes of what you are saying. Iād love to have a good-faith discussion with you.
2 Likes
current approach of icdevs within the tokenomic isnt right either even if you here in the position of good faith because sometime good intention lead to hell that;s why i am here oppose thing that in my view are bad for the long term development of the icp and i know n accknowledge the vast contribution of icdevs within the technical stuff but in tokenomic i think we;d be better off if you didnt contribute and leave this kind stuff to dfinity economical team (ruling party equivalent) because its seem like u doing thing that are not base on the bigger picture n especially doing the opposite of what we should do especially during this macro event that started to happen all across the world, actions 1 will definitely lead us into a new kind of crisis/ capital outflow possibly because its not right to tweak the tokenomic every other week,
bear with it, youāll see more into the future/ if you really want to embrace the culture of sovereignty within the icp, its just like the paliament or a board direction of traditional entreprise,
but atleast we wont touche thing that we do not know like the technical stuff change in code of the icp etc, hope icdevs will do the same especially with the tokenomic design/ n i believe that there always the reason behind the tokenomic policy done by dfinity so better leave it alone there,
no wonder it took icdevs so long to become a known neuron, sorry fact
Thank you for the support, but I have to say that I think @skilesare is making good faith arguments.
I may disagree with some of his ideas, but I think he is genuinely advocating for what he thinks is in the long term best interest of the IC in a well considered and objective way. I appreciate his contributions to the deliberation on this and many other proposal topics.
1 Like
his contribution is enormous within the technical and i only oppose his action 1 that could get another side effect after implemented because it might be bad for the protocol without him knowing it.
1 Like
Lol! If you really pour over @skilesare 's history, you would actually see how embedded he is into the whole economics front.
How he finds time to sleep in between communicating the common good, leading a challenging project at Origyn and actively contributing to open source is a puzzle for me.
I have had my share of disagreements publicly with some of his thoughts. But good faith of @skilesare is something that i dont even pause to question.
5 Likes