The linked forum URL in the proposal redirects to a discussion from 2022. Is there a more recent discussion or forum thread where the elements of this proposal are being deliberated?
Regarding the Content:
You make a valid point in questioning the shape of the voting reward function after the 8-year transition phase, shifting from 10% to 5%, especially in terms of its potential link to the amount of cycles burned.
This is a complex issue, and I believe the following points need consideration (these are just some initial thoughts):
Inflation Factors: Voting rewards are one element of inflation, with node provider rewards being another. If we’re considering linking voting rewards to cycle consumption, should node rewards also be included in this framework? Additionally, is there a case for making node rewards dynamic based on cycle demand?
Impact on Neuron Staking: What would be the implications for incentives regarding neuron staking?
Variability in Cycle Consumption: Given the day-to-day fluctuations in cycle consumption, would linking it to rewards necessitate some form of averaging mechanism?
Looking forward to your thoughts on these points.
Final remark: You are raising a valid and interesting topic that merits discussion. However, I believe that before we can define a viable solution, much more in-depth discussion and analysis are required. Therefore, at this stage, I would personally lean towards voting ‘no.’
Hello @bjoernek, first of all I would like to thank you for your quick response regarding my proposal. However, I’m not convinced that your “personal suggestion to vote no” is actually personal. You are a member of the DFINITY Team and you comment on forum.dfinity.org and propose how others should vote… I will leave my opinion on this for others to think about.
However, I would like to answer your questions regarding the proposal which is simply intended to ask the community if they want rewards to be tied to anything other than a percentage of the total token supply.
Inflation Factors: I know that currently the rewards for voting are inflationary debts with no coverage. So I made the proposal discussed above to tie our voting rewards on a percentage basis to ICP burn.
Node rewards are a separate issue requiring a separate proposal, but it seems to me that the idea of decentralization requires multiple providers and replicas of the subnet itself, which may generate above-average costs for developers. I mentioned the possibility of further inflation subsidies, but this is not the main topic of this proposal.
Impact on Neuron Staking: The incentive to staking neurons would probably be greater when neurons obtain a higher APY, i.e. (as proposed) when the ecosystem is in the phase of increasing network activity. So I suspect there wouldn’t be many implications.
Variability in Cycle Consumption: If we chose the first option for development, i.e. linking the amount of ICP burned on a given day, then no. However, if the base reward percentage remained 5%, you would probably need to take the sum of tokens burned over the last 24 hours and then compare it in terms of the percentage change compared to the previous day or to the average of the previous few days or the average over the entire year. In this case, you can use the averaging mechanism you mentioned.
It seems to me that the solution I presented is so realistic and logical that it is worth discussing and adding deeper details. However, I don’t understand your immediate verdict on the proposal. Almost 30 people saw it (until I got to it myself), so taking into account your authority as a member of DFINITY Team, they could have voted aginst already at this stage, without delving deeper into the proposal, which is already quite general and (after adoption) still leaves a lot of room for discussion regarding its implementation by the foundation (or someone else).
The proposal itself was discussed in the private community and also supported by the votes of some 8yearsgangDAO members on OpenChat. I look forward to further discussion, questions and doubts!
Just to iterate on why I raised concerns at this stage: Your proposal suggests a significant change to the tokenomics of the network. For such a profound change, I believe the ideal approach would begin with a detailed forum discussion outlining the pros and cons, followed by a vote.
Of course, initiating a discussion with a proposal and then checking support for it (or a modified version) is entirely within your rights. However, from my perspective, it’s challenging to assess the appropriateness of this proposal without a prior detailed discussion. My personal yardstick is: If I don’t fully understand the implications of a proposal, I am not ready to support it yet.
What I wrote above is my personal view and I did not discuss/syndicate it before within DFINITY. Given that the proposal was already out, I thought it would make sense to reply quickly.
I am not sure about this point. It’s one of the areas that, in my opinion, necessitates further analysis. For instance, if voting rewards were significantly reduced, could this lead to a substantial number of neurons dissolving, thereby impacting decentralization?
Simply NO, there is low burn right now, you basically want to kill stakeing for your short term price rise. Stakeing is needed as it is for projects that lock huge amount ICP for thery operation cost. The more projects come, the more will be locked. We most likely will see over 60% locked supply with no dissolving date just from projects built on ICP.
ICP is goldmine for projects who build and lock up tokens, GoldDao is planning to lock 800k ICP. Why people dont see it that right now everything is set up for great future.
Should have been called how to burn 10 ICP with a proposal linking to a one year old forum post without TL;DR.
Also without stating who “we” are new folks to the ic who don’t click on the proposal overview and proposals ID have no idea who Krzysztof Żelazko is.
All I could gather is the description of named neuron :
“Goal
As a community, we need more named neurons to increase decentralization. So I want to create a neuron that will inspire ordinary people to propose NNS and name their neuron via the nnsproposal.icp.xyz website.” but when you look at the users forum post it is a different story.
Why do you say now? The proposal assumes a gradual transition. Once a stable 5% APY is achieved in 2029 based on increased or decreased ICP burn, rewards could be slightly modulated depending on improvements or declines in efficiency. This is how gratification systems work in large corporations, and this system, aimed at improving employee efficiency and commitment, simply works. Why not apply it to NNS?
Dominic Williams said that ICP will take over the $3 trillion IT market. Assuming it takes 10%, that’s 300 trillion. This offers enormous opportunities to open up to new markets, users and faster network scaling. Somewhere on this forum I came across a chart where @bjoernek indicated that in a few years the total amount of ICP is expected to start falling, so I figured this planned deflationary factor could be used as an indicator of our efficiency and the associated voting rewards. Why doesn’t anyone read the proposal to the end, where the year 2029/30 is indicated?
In my opinion, democracy is a system where 10 percent of voters are capitalists, 39% are communists, and 51% don’t take an active part in decision-making processes (as indicated by the voter turnout results in European countries). My proposal and its current preliminary results show something similar. Few people take a long-term view. I don’t want to offend anyone, but simply point out the reason for the lack of satisfaction with my proposal on the DFINITY forum. Perhaps actively submitting proposals to NNS is simply not for me and as a capitalist I am not suitable for it, but I am glad that I could contribute to the development and present my ideas for new functions, e.g. in OpenChat.
I do not believe that I should necessarily discuss it on forum.dfinity.org before submitting my proposal, and I was reluctant to add a link to the discussion conducted here a year ago in my proposal. I am quite well known among the ICP community in my region, but nothing more than that. As I stated in the proposal, you should “act locally, think globally” and that’s what I do. I don’t care about notoriety outside of my local community, but I’m eager to contribute to positive change on a global scale. I am a small participant in the ICP network, so I believe that there should be more people like me, and the role of DFINITY in the ecosystem should be at least 10x smaller than it is now. However, without DFINITY’s approval, it is currently impossible to pass any proposal. After the comment of one of the employees, I expect it to be rejected, but it is not really known who makes the decisions as a neuron of the DFINITY Foundation. I know that these are about 7 neurons, whose identity no one really knows, and the snapshot of the proposal to change the observations for neuron 28 that I have is from half a year ago. There are still many mysteries to unravel here, a lot to do on the way to achieving full decentralization, but I’m very sorry but I also have my own life and I have to limit the time I spend on charity activities such as my contribution to the ecosystem, because no one really pays me for it.
Fortunately, after years of intense commitment, I can finally say that “it wasn’t worth it so much, it’s time to slow down a bit”
The facts remain that once the proposal is rejected, the maturity nomenclature should be changed from “Voting Rewards” to “Staking Rewards” as it is quite misleading.
If it were a reward for voting, it would depend on voting and its effectiveness, not only on the stake. If only stake + activity counts without measuring efficiency, it can be considered a staking reward:
People who stake ICPs just for the rewards to sell them after the neuron is disssolved don’t represent a big loss in decentralization. These people mostly follow DFINITY, which doesn’t change much more in terms of decentralization. Additionally, the newly created maturity also flows into DFINITY. The Foundation currently has, AFAIK, about 70 MLN (half of ICP in 8 years-staked neurons?) and thanks to such high rewards for voting, they have easily accumulated 20 MLN of maturity (or more) and it’s quite hidden. Is a high APY really a cure for a potential problem with decentralization? Let’s take a closer look and we will certainly see it deepening significantly in these times of high APY, but in a little bit more disguised form.
Hey @bjoernek how did you know that @krzysztofzelazko submitted this proposal? He wasn’t identified in the proposal. The link to the forum that was provided in the proposal was to a post started by @smaug and @krzysztofzelazko was an infrequent contributor to that original discussion. I never would have predicted that this proposal came from him, so I’m curious how you knew. I’m sure I’m missing out on some communication.
Hey @krzysztofzelazko, in my opinion a proposal needs to be discussed by the community before it is submitted to the NNS if you want it to have a realistic chance of getting adopted. It’s going to be impossible to know if your proposal is rejected because people don’t like it or simply because they were blind sided. A four day voting period is simply not enough time to consider these ideas and since you already submitted it there is no way for deliberation among the community to help shape the proposal further. Of course, you can resubmit later, but it makes a lot of sense to me that this proposal will get rejected no matter how realistic and logical it may be and no matter whether @bjoernek expresses where he stands on it at this time.
I’ve heard others indicate in the past that they don’t think they should discuss their ideas on the forum before submitting a proposal. There is certainly not a requirement to discuss it anywhere in particular. The reality is that most people do expect to see NNS proposals discussed on the forum prior to submission. Hence, anyone who doesn’t start there is choosing to make it more difficult to achieve approval. To each, their own…I suppose.
Not even 2024 and you want to change things at 2029/30, most likely your tokens are unlocked than to dump. Dude things change fast in crypto world, this thing can be looked when ICP is at 5%, than can look burn, network usage, and only than see if something needs to be changed. Your proposal at this time is totally useless and confuses people.
Voteing rewards are there to keep people voteing, if only passive stakeing rewards, than people like you can mess up entire ecosystem.
The proposal was submitted by neuron 5944070935127277981 which is a known neuron linked to @krzysztofzelazko. (You can click on the neuron id in the proposal on the dashboard which will lead you to known neuron page).
I understand your opinion. You are right that it takes more than just a moment to make the right decision on such key management issues.
The proposal we are discussing has been deliberately prepared in such a way as to simply outline whether the community wants the rewards to have some connection with the governance’s effectiveness or whether it should simply be a rigidly fixed, unchanging percentage, as it is now.
However, I think I see the problem is that there is only one forum (the one we are on), which is actually the DFINITY Foundation forum. I myself discussed the proposal with many people in the ICP community, but not here (that’s why there was such weak support, despite the substantive and sensible proposal open to discussion even after its approval), who rightly pointed out that they treat voting rewards more like staking rewards than voting rewards. . Mostly they just buy ICPs, block them and look for the most active neuron to vote for them. There are many communities with separate discussion forums (often private) and I believe that if we expect decentralization, something should be done about it.
Currently I see 2 possible solutions, but there are probably more:
Extend the voting time for governance proposals to allow for a longer discussion before deciding to vote in the NNS.
The first option requires one proposal. The second one is the development and development of auto-moderation methods so as to maintain decentralization of data and pluralism of expression. There should be no room for censorship there. IC was supposed to be censorship-resistance from the beginning.
Or maybe use both of them?
Oh, and thank you @wpb for your comment on the discussion, very clear and substantive!
8 year gang knows perfectly well that the current high inflation is harmful in the long term. If the 5% reward modulation scares you, you can leave. NNS will reach this rewards level until 2029, because this is how the function of reducing rewards from genesis works, regardless of my proposal, which is only aimed at increasing commitment and not any reduction in remuneration. The modulation itself would be a zero-sum game in the long-term, where sometimes you get 3%, sometimes 5%, sometimes 7%, but the average is close to 5%. From your reply appears that you are only here for quick returns on investment and you have no commitment longer than these 8 years, or you haven’t carefully read the proposal we are discussing. High APY results in the possibility of a quick exit, and in the meantime we are sitting into an high inflation and the amount of ICP is diluted, so your tokens locked for eternal 8 years will probably grow 2x less during these 8 years and you are at zero.
Voting rewards in themselves provide no value if they aren’t a real reward for contribution to management but only a “staking reward”. Currently, they only block excess supply so that VCs can exit their investments at slightly higher prices.
I respect the democratic vision of the NNS and stakeholders right to vote and make proposals. However , this proposal was a thinly veiled attempt to coerce the project toward a deflationary or near deflationary state, before it is ready for it, in attempt to accelerate price appreciation synthetically. Trying to mask it as a noble attempt to improve the tokenomics of the IC is dubious. To be honest the proposal gave an air of short term “crypto degen” mentality of trying to pump a project so that tokens can be dumped and quick profits can be made.
In my opinion the tokenomics of the project are brilliant from a long term point of view and shouldn’t be touched, at very least until they have been given a long enough runway for real world validation or invalidation. The tokenomics are designed to align the motivations of long term stakeholders with the long term success of the project, not to “burn tokens and go parabolic.” To suggest that simply pegging voter rewards to cycle burn rate on a daily basis to cause less inflation basically erases the elegant and profound tokenomics (my opinion) and in exchange substitutes an overly simplistic solution. Have Perhaps the designers of the tokenomics, who happen to be experts in their field, actually thought carefully about the long term implications … Not just a 12-24 month mindset to try to make quick profits.
On another note, I think “blind” submitting a proposal to the NNS, linked to a years old forum post, and trying to use runaround language and hyperbole to potentially paint a different picture to what is actually being proposed is somewhat irresponsible. While I respect your right to do so, realize many people may be confused and easily misled if they are non technical voters, and that is worrying. Yes the NNS is a democratic system and anyone should be allowed to theoretically submit a proposal however common decorum would suggest a thorough discussion and vetting of any proposal in public eyes would be the proper way to do things before throwing up a proposal to the NNS and forcing a vote.
In my opinion, the ICP tokenomics was brilliantly designed to maximize profit for VC investors. With high rewards, they encourage the average retail investor to buy tokens, lock them and, as a result, provide them with initial liquidity. Then, the same players use the obtained $ to expand the ICP infrastructure, taking advantage of the high APY for node providers (the entry barrier is quite high for the average investor), reaping further profits.
I’m now wondering whether to sell some liquid tokens and become a node provider, although there is a high risk that I will not be accepted due to slightly different views on tokenomics and the definition of decentralization from the majority of the DFINITY network community.
You need to familiarise yourself more with the community your trying to rob even just to sound less like a clown especially after spouting off erroneous statements like “8 year gang are here for a short term gain”. 8 year gang by default means non dissolving aka a life sentence and the ultimate sacrifice one could make towards the ICP ecosystem and crypto in general.
You’re not the first and wont be the last person to try and tinker with the tokenomics for your own benefit , If you truly want to nerf the rewards so price goes up and you can sell your stack then every single neuron who agreed to lock before your aged idea new stench proposal must be allowed to unlock and leave for absolute fairness to be achieved and if you do not agree with that than you cant be anything other than a parasite cashing in off the backs of a betrayed community.
I didn’t say that ‘8 year gang’ is for short term profits. It was only about you and your personal, different from ‘8 year gang’ views - which I also respect.
Brush up on your scapegoat tactics or maybe get a first coat because i am 8 year gang and all those who have made the ulitmate commitment to the icp ecosystem deserve the tokenomics we signed up for and the rewards that you are trying to pilfer/parasite off from us in order for “price go up” so you can dump lel… But its the 8 year gang after a short term profit right?
You’ve been humbled hard boyo now hold the L and hand in your clown shoes.
