After reading the comments, my conclusion is that without a thorough study and conditioned by the desire or fear of attracting more participants, it does not seem to me the way in which the IC should act. Perhaps later, if we reach a deflationary scenario, we can address the issue. My vote is no, and I believe that the 8-year-old gang will do the same.
4 Likes
To lower the barrier of entry for new stakers and enhance the viability of liquid staking protocols
Both of these are misleading:
- Liquid Staking Tokens (LST) allow new stakers to stake for 1 minute if they want to. Buy the token and then sell it.
- LST are not less viable by keeping 6mo minimum dissolve delay. There are other ways to make LST protocols. The only reason you would need 3mo minimum dissolve delay is to auto stake user assets, both legally (with consent - a recent CEX feature called virtual crypto wallets, where you opt in by clicking ‘OK’ in a popup) and illegally. Given the track record of less reputable exchanges over the years (ICP is on ~140 CEXes), some will be very likely staking user assets without consent. This will potentially make nICP a highway between CEXes for legal and illegal user asset staking. This change and down pressure it causes on price will be in favor of node providers, who will mint higher amount of ICP rewards. WTN 51%+, Synapse 51%+ and CodeGov 51%+ seem to be predominantly protecting the interests of these, which we named ‘The inverse group’ - mostly made out of people who don’t have significant amount of 8y ICP neurons, but get paid $ amounts of ICP monthly, node providers, reviewers, hubs, other services, possibly some employees etc. Which allows them to profit from such scheme, because they have almost no skin in the game.
1 Like
Additionally, the 10% canister neuron limit will not limit LST protocols. Once they grow up to the limit, they can add more ICP neurons using HTTP outcalls and CK.
1 Like
I’ve seen some concerns in this thread about the proposal to reduce the minimum dissolve delay, and I wanted to share a few thoughts.
First off, this isn’t about changing the rules out of nowhere - it’s just the final step in implementing a motion that was already passed by the community almost a year ago in a motion proposal. The NNS is a living governance system, and part of staking ICP means accepting that parameters can change over time through community decision-making.
As for the argument that this mainly benefits platforms like WaterNeuron - I actually think the opposite might be true. A shorter minimum dissolve delay could make it more attractive for people to stake on their own, instead of going through liquid staking protocols or centralized exchanges like Coinbase or Binance. That could lead to more decentralization, not less.
And of course, if you’ve staked for 8 years, that still gives you more voting power and rewards. This change doesn’t take anything away from long-term stakers. It just opens the door for more people to get involved without such a big initial commitment.
All in all, I think this is a healthy move for the ecosystem. It respects past decisions, invites new participation, and potentially reduces centralization. Seems like a fair trade-off.
2 Likes
Ok why don’t we do another motion proposal to ignore the first motion proposal.
Yes, it was a year ago. Since then we’ve found out that Leo and Enzo have done all sorts of shady stuff and are bad actors backed by David Fisher and Wenzel.
Alice - that’s Enzo and Leo
Boom DAO defence, stealing $100k, - that’s enzo and leo too
4 Likes
This is not true. The rewards minted for voting are fixed in total. The more auto user staking in 3mo neurons, the less rewards 8y neurons will get.
3 Likes
This i did not know either and is concerning. Again, it feels like 8 year stakers are gonna get the short stick all for short term gains. Why cook up a 20 year roadmap when every year you wanna thinker with the tokenomics…
1 Like
This is a NO!!!
3 Likes
Bro, if people now have a different view, they can bring it up in a new motion. But pretending like this wasn’t clearly voted on before doesn’t really help the conversation.
I don’t care about defending any specific actors or protocols either. What matters to me is the broader impact of this change.
Lowering the minimum dissolve delay doesn’t break the system. If anything, it gives new users a chance to stake directly, without locking up their ICP for half a year right from the start. That’s not a bad thing. In fact, it might help reduce centralization by making it easier for people to avoid custodial staking or liquid staking platforms altogether.
3 month neurons still get much lower rewards than 8 year ones. The incentives haven’t changed. Long-term staking is still rewarded the most, and always should be.
2 Likes
Currently, 8-year neurons must stake for 16 times longer than the minimum duration to earn 2× the rewards.
This proposal changes it so they must stake for 32 times longer to receive the same 2× reward. But by doing so also reduces their rewards. Probably from 14% to ~10% over time
9 Likes
The 8 year bonus doesn’t really mean much to these people. They have no skin in the game other than the VP they take from other people under false pretenses.
This’ll just get buried though, people won’t see the messages that actually mattyer.
5 Likes
His name came up a LOT when we were researching the bad node providers. Poland seems to be some hub of shell companies.
3 Likes
That’s a pretty heavy accusation, but I think it misses the bigger picture.
Also, suggesting an entire country is somehow responsible because a few names show up in your research? That’s just lazy generalization. But this proposal was passed by the community near a year ago, and it’s being implemented as agreed.
If people want to re-discuss it, anyone can bring a new motion. But let’s not turn valid governance discussions into personal attacks or conspiracy threads. That’s not how decentralization grows.
5 Likes
can you specify which community are you specifically talking about?
agreed by a motion proposal on NNS?
can you elaborate how exactly does this decentralize the network with delegating proof of stake votes?
Yeah, it’s a no from me, I’m backing @borovan all the way.
2 Likes
I agree with this. In an official DFINITY Medium article from 2021 titled “Getting Started on the Internet Computer’s Network Nervous System App (Wallet),” the team clearly stated:
Users benefit the most if their neuron attains its maximum possible value. When considering the locked neuron, that moment is always “dissolve delay days” in the future, which comes closer every day that a neuron is dissolving. Meanwhile, the long-term success of the network will best be served if neuron owners vote with a long-term view toward maximizing the value of the network in the distant future. For such reasons, the NNS incentivizes neuron owners to make their dissolve periods as high as possible by disbursing greater rewards to neurons the greater their dissolve periods, which can be configured up to eight years.
As a result of this incentive structure, a substantial portion of ICP holders (61.5% of staked tokens) locked their tokens for the full 8-year period. These holders now receive approximately 15.6-16.1% in annualized rewards
And now while most of us are locked for 8 years, we would only receive approximately 2x the rewards (15-16%) compared to the proposed 7.66% for 3-month neurons, despite being locked for 32 times longer. This reward-to-lock ratio is extremely unfair to long-term stakers who committed to supporting the network’s stability.
If you want to implement shorter lock periods, I suggest a truly proportional approach based on duration. For example, 3-month staking should start with a much lower rate like 1.1%, with a progressive system where rewards scale more fairly with commitment length, leading up to the maximum return percentage at 8 years. This would properly incentivize longer-term commitment while still offering flexibility to those who need shorter lock periods
9 Likes
I’m saying that the Poland ICP Hub came up a lot when we found out the bad node providers that were breaking the rules. Toronto, Warsaw, Johannesburg and Singapore were top of the list.
1 Like
This is incredibly important. A discussion should be had about rewards, but this proposal is very short sighted and potentially harmful to the whole ecosystem.
And this…
The people supporting this proposal are people who will happily walk away and move on to the next thing when the tremendous potential the IC has is destroyed. Meanwhile, the people with the long term vision will be punished.
This is all backwards. At the very least this should be a No vote until after Caffeine is launched and the foundation has the bandwidth to properly assess potential changes to the staking and reward system.
6 Likes
Adam, could you please provide the evidence you have collected that @dfisher is heavily invested in or has ties to Coinbase because I asked him recently straight up and he basically denied it from the verbatim conversation below (or I believe he did).
And how do you and Donna know he has plans to undermine the IC using WTN and Coinbase Liquid Staking as you state in your current motion? Couldn’t I also make the same argument against You and Donna based on your huge investments as well? How can anyone trust any large stakeholders motives? You have Dragginz so that’s skin in the game fine but having nodes is also skin right and you and Donna now plan to spin up a bunch of nodes as well. Couldn’t David now sling the same accusations against you two based on similar type of evidence? What has David done to harm the IC other than to make very large investments? I mean I’m not happy with his last minute investment in Waterneuron’s Papaya sale as it massively reduced my percentage stake but I mean you have a 90% stake in Trax which I’m invested in and I’m not slinging accusations at you or mad because you have complete control over Dragginz where every proposal is already decided before you propose it… Isn’t this a bit hypocritical?
April 27th, 2025
Me: Are you heavily invested in Coinbase’s “Base” chain? There is a conspiracy theory revolving around you David regarding you being one of the earliest investors in Coinbase’s “BASE” chain.
Is this true? Are you one of the earliest Coinbase “Base” investors?
David: No it’s a complete fabrication. It’s literally all lies.
Sorry the truth is more boring than some would hope.
FWIW I wish I was a seed investor in Coinbase!
4 Likes