This is the comprehensive discussion 
Please share any concern/feedback.
I never viewed voting like that, it’s interesting.
So if you vote in favor of a code change that takes three years, you should probably not be able to dissolve for three years + a bit.
How would you evaluate how long a change takes? Are you talking about implementation? Because then the effect of such a change would probably show up even after.
Of course, explaining this to a user might be more complicated and that always seems to be a sticking point for retail take up.
From what I saw, the NNS is already way too complex for most people. If you’re not an engineer you’ll probably have a hard time grasping all the subtleties.
Which part? (The underlying assumption of proof of stake that proof of stake doesn’t work unless what you have at stake is actually at stake? or something else…just want to give a proper response…I think most people want to see IC staking like ETH2 staking but they are fundamentally different…see the end of this post).
This is why things have been simplified to 6mo-8years. Those dates are arbitrary, but for a reason that you want people to vote with a long horizon. If they are not subject to a penalty for the duration that their decision affects, the system does not work. We aren’t in a perfect world so we have to abstract.
From what I saw, the NNS is already way too complex for most people. If you’re not an engineer you’ll probably have a hard time grasping all the subtleties.
Yes…this is a big problem. There seems to be a desire for retail to be involved in the governance of things they have very little information or insight on. At the national level we have no other recourse but to give citizens that may not have all the info a vote because “democracy”, but even then we usually just give them the ability to vote for people who hopefully DO know the details. It seems it isn’t abstracting well to technical systems. Liquid Democracy could fix it, but there is no permanent value or incentive to develop the expertise to bootstrap that.
To bring it back to this discussion…there are certainly some items that we vote on that SHOULD have a long horizon. Whatever the LONGEST is can be viewed as the attack point. Every time we shorten it we expose ourselves to some long-term, information-disadvantaged attack on our network. If we ignore that we’re all just picking pennies up in front of the bulldozer that we can’t see yet.
If we could draw some easy-to-define lines between kinds of votes we could give stakers at least some rewards(for example, when we used to vote on the exchange rate, those values were only good for like an hour…we could have given everyone locked for at least one hour access to those rewards).
ETH2 Staking is completely different than IC staking because the ONLY thing you vote for is irrelevant after the epoch is over…so unstaking after an epoch has no downside.
Hi, maybe is not theme related but, Wich is the reward for an 8year Neuron with 700ICP?
Just unified 2 neurons and rewards descent significantly.
Thank’s
1: The proposed change further skews the proportionality of staking rewards. The shorter lockup periods are disproportionately more rewarding relative to their duration compared to the longest lockup period. This misalignment could discourage long-term staking, potentially undermining the intended stability and commitment incentivized by longer lockups.
Disproportionate Staking Rewards:
The current staking rewards for ICP exhibit a significant disparity between the shortest and longest lockup periods:
- 6-Month Staking:
- Annual Percentage Yield (APY): 8%
- Lockup Duration: 6 months (0.5 years)
- 8-Year Staking:
- Annual Percentage Yield (APY): 15%
- Lockup Duration: 8 years
When the proposal changes the 6-month staking to a 3-month lockup with the same 8% APY, the already existing disparity becomes even more pronounced:
- 3-Month Staking (Proposed):
- Annual Percentage Yield (APY): 8%
- Lockup Duration: 3 months (0.25 years)
Disproportion Analysis:
- Current 6-Month vs. 8-Year Staking:
- 6-month stakers receive 8% APY for a 0.5-year lockup.
- 8-year stakers receive 15% APY for an 8-year lockup.
- The reward for the longer lockup is only 1.875 times (15% / 8%) that of the shorter lockup despite the lockup duration being 16 times longer (8 years / 0.5 years).
- Proposed 3-Month vs. 8-Year Staking:
- 3-month stakers receive 8% APY for a 0.25-year lockup.
- The reward for the longer lockup remains 15% APY for an 8-year lockup.
- The reward for the longer lockup is 1.875 times (15% / 8%) that of the shortest lockup despite the lockup duration being 32 times longer (8 years / 0.25 years).
Hence the lack of nuance because shortening the minimum disolve delay to gives rewards from six to three months does not only affect 6 months holders, as the proposal only focus on solving one issue but fails to take into account it accerbates another topic of discussion, which is the disproportionality of staking rewards, which this motion increases immensely.
2: Four days ago when you created this thread you stated: “I warmly invite the community to share their feedback. If the feedback is positive I would submit a motion proposal for this change.”
This was reasonable whoever during these days no one took notice, you went forward to submit a motion with hardly no one being aware of the discussion, efficiently while everyone was unable to provide feedback, and the very little feedback given was not overwhelmingly positive.
We now have a motion very important for the community, which will pass or fail before most are aware it was snuck in to the NNS.
4 Likes
@SamurajSelfieSam, your analysis isn’t quite correct because you don’t take into account how the APY changes when you start dissolving your neuron. If you stake for exactly 6 months, your APY is actually 0 because you do not earn any rewards once your dissolve delay goes under 6 months. If you stake for exactly one year, your APY jumps to a whopping ~4%. That low APY makes you wonder why anybody stakes their ICP for a relatively short period of time.
The proposal would change the APYs listed above so that if someone stakes for 6 months, they would get a ~4% APY and if they stake for a year they get ~6%. That seems reasonable to me.
1 Like
The incentives for a 3 month neuron still wouldn’t be competitive with Cosmos, Solana and Polkadot who had much higher rewards and far less time. Perhaps we should reevaluate rewards for all the neurons and the insane length of time of staking.
2 Likes
How is possible that rewards for a 500 icp neuron was higher than 700 icp neuron?
Was 0,23 for a 500 neuron and now is 0,12 for a 700 neuron…It has no sense
It’s not. Either it was more than one days worth of rewards or one has a lot longer age bonues
1 Like
When you merge neurons it eats away at the new neuron’s age bonus, that’s why you get less rewards.
So if you want to up your stakes on a regular basis, NEVER merge neurons but create a new one every time.
[edit]
You get a drop in age bonus in proportion to the increase in stake, so if you increase your stake with 10% with the new neuron your age bonus will drop by 10%, thus affecting your rewards negatively.
1 Like
Thank’s for your answer but i made this many times, i erase the new neuron and mantain the old one. That’s my surprise whe i get the reward.
Now i’m receiving less reward and waiting 16 years…
There’s any other option to increase the reward? guess is impossible to change the disolve delay, isn’t it?
Thank’s again for your response
It doesn’t matter if you keep old or new one. When you merge they make a new “neuron age”. This is displayed and you have to confirm you agree.
1 Like
Thank’s again, guess it’s all clear for me now 
This is just a query.
I have a neuron that is dissolving. At 6 months it will not receive any voting rewards. If this vote goes through, will my neuron receive no voting rewards for 3 months?
Or is this not applicable to me as my neuron is dissolving ? Thanks
If this vote passes, nothing will happen. It is a motion proposal. That’s like us collectively asking Dfinity to make the change but there is no obligation and no code that will automatically update.
2 Likes
Can you do the rewards math on this? Because a lot of people are thinking the 3-months are getting more rewards than the 8 year neurons.
I calculated they’re getting 4.07x more rewards than 8-year stakers.
Here’s the math:
8-year stake = (more or less) 15%.
3-month stake = (7.66% / 4 =) 1.915%.
3 months = 1/32nd of 8 years, so reward should be 1/32 of 15% = 0.46(875) ~0.47%.
So with this passing, they’ll be getting 1.915% for 3 months whereas they should only be getting 0.47%.
This amounts to 1.915% / 0.47% = 4.07x more rewards they’ll be receiving.
And this 4.07x is with them only being locked out of their coins for 3 months (32 times less) so their rewards should be much, much lower still than the 0.47%.
I used 15% for the 8 years; theoretically this could be as high as 16%, which would make the “4.07x” somewhat smaller.
My personal opinion is that self-censored. I’ll stick to “I’m not too happy about it”.
If my math is wrong, anyone can correct it, we all make mistakes.
1 Like
To avoid confusion, I’d like to clarify how voting rewards currently work. The dissolve delay bonus isn’t complicated, and it’s explained well in the NNS Neuron Sandbox help text.
It’s linear. If the minimum dissolve delay required to vote were reduced from 6 months to 3 months, the voting rewards received from 6 months down to 3 months would decrease linearly, just like they do for all other date ranges.
You can think of this as 8-year neurons getting double the rewards of 0-year neurons (if those 0-year neurons could vote). This is how NNS voting rewards have always worked.
These would roughly be estimated annualized rewards as of today:
8 years: 14.89%
…
6 months: 7.91%
5 months: 7.83%
4 months: 7.76%
3 months: 7.68%
I say roughly because I’m using the current total voting power for the calculations, but total voting power would increase if 3-6 month neurons had voting power, and I don’t have that data.
4 Likes
Any change to help the ecosystem, I’m definitely for. I want Dfinity/ICP to be competitive with industry standards to attract new investors. However, this motion feels a little rushed? I think any changes that happen to rewards at anytime should have a more complete plan that is fair to everyone, instead of tinkering with durations down the line.
I know it’s just a motion, and likely to pass, but just thought i’d throw my two cents in.
1 Like
i have one question and one doubt
will this update only applies to neurons or stacking that will be made or created only after the proposal has been aproved?
because if it applies to all neurons
even the ones that were created before the proposal was summited and adopted, if it pass, so far it kooks like is going to pass
then will i get 3 extra months of rewards
because neurons will stop recieving rewards after it goes below 6 months but if the minimum is lower to 3 then all neurons should recieve another 3 extra months of rewards
this is why i ask if this proposal is only for neurons created after the proposal
don’t know if they took that into consideration or they missed that part