I apologize in advance as I am still learning the ecosystem. I am mainly in this forum to learn and possibly use that knowledge to build something in the future. I have been 100% sold on the concept around ICP. I recently, however, read a thread the left me with a bad feeling.
The whole point of staking ICP is to get voting rights. It seems this is shifting behind the scenes. Staked ICP will have a different level of voting power which is ultimately just advice to NNS token holders. And these NNS tokens are very difficult to get without the support of a “higher up, more intelligent” holder.
I’m not upset, just looking for some clarification. This may be way off and I may have read into this wrong- if so I apologize. If this is true however, isn’t this just putting the power into a central group of people who ultimately make or can change any decision the majority wants.
And I understand the reasoning. People have no idea what they are voting on leading to risk.
Glad to be part of the community and get to see all of the advancements being made.
Hi @Cryptomergency, welcome to the community! I think you raise a great question, and I’m always happy to see critically minded individuals join the forum and take part in these sorts of debates. That’s one of the things that keeps the IC strong and healthy!
I’m also a concerned community member, and I do my best to keep up with these sorts of discussions, and to take part in them in order to participate in steering the ship (so the speak).
You mentioned StakedICP (aka Meta Pool). I’m glad that there are competing solutions that exist which do take governance very seriously, such as WaterNeuron. I’m convinced this particular liquid staking solution will have a positive impact on NNS governance over time.
Full disclosure, I’ve invested in WaterNeuron (that’s because I genuinely believe in it), and I actively engage in the WaterNeuron DAO
