Overall tokenomic is not a child play, you shouldn’t panic and try to shoot the risk manager that only do for mutual interest of the system.
Or is it because he touched the interest of some big followees?
I think we have new web3 jokes
5 Likes
this whole proposal is a joke, no wonder it took icdev so long to become a known followee
1 Like
ok…so where were you when the weighting structure was being changed to increased for governance proposal rewards…was that fraud also??
Because the terms of the rewards structure change after you made the commitment to lock up for 8 years. There is no grey area we can’t be this cavalier about peoples money after we convinced them to lock up for 8 years. Anywhere in the world that would be called a scam.
But that’s just one issue. The second issue is worse:
Because voting is required we made nns centralized through following mechanic.
people are voting without proper research and even worst they are blindly following all because they need to click yes or no.
As it stands @skilesare could make a proposal to give him self a million icp and vote for him self and there is nothing we can do.
The more I think about it the more I think tokenomics should be removed all together from governance and staking should just be passive.
If it was passive it would be decentralized to the people that care.
2 Likes
No one gonna trust the system if we keep going back and forth like this. It should be delete or postpone.
While I disagree with postponing I agree with first statement. No one will trust a system that plays with their money.
I want this motion to pass because in my humble opinion forcing governance is a disaster waiting to happen.
NNS and icp was not design for that, maybe we need someone to build another separate protocol for liquidity staking like liquity but please not here.
That is exactly what I’m afraid of, passive staking platform where people delegate votes to one entity, This entity then has full control of nns. All because we don’t want people to be able to abstain from voting.
Might also boast up Defi ecosystem within the ICP too if we have another staking Defi protocol specifically for passive and be tokenize and distribute the ownership for it users.
No seperate not within the NNS
ok but what stops me from making a defi app that does it with the NNS?
Because the NNS is design for active in order for protocol to be more vibrant and flourish, voting with brain not with feet (sorry for saying that)
1 Like
NNS cannot be tokenize we should build another dapp for passive and it actually do good than harm for the system and also be another way for Defi to flourish within the ecosystem too
that’s why this proposal should be delete and find another way to solve the problem rather than panic and twist the whole tokenomic out of misunderstood
I resubmitted without voting. That was my bad. It is fixed an I won’t vote until the last day.
1 Like
So that known followee could be Delete in peace, sorry
decentralization of the NNS, matter. NNS for active participant not for passive.
I promise not to do so. 
I do have this proposal to try to help diversify the following so what happened with my vote does not happen again.
Also, A proposal has already been passed and is being coded that lets you change your vote even after your followee has voted.
1 Like