Well person who joined 2 weeks ago, let me give you a crash course on the development.
A lot of people locked ICP in neurons they bought at 50$ per ICP. That was the average price for the first year.
Node providers mint around 21 mil$ in ICP a year. Some people will probably argue and point out that this is nothing for the IC, but let’s look at the numbers. 10,914,450 ICP were minted and given to NPs. These will change hands a few times, but when the price goes to 50$, this means that these rewards will be worth 545,722,500$. So for the 50$ per ICP 8y neuron holder, the IC has minted half a billion $ for the price to get back to 50$, and if they want it to go to 100$, 1 billion $.
You could have the NNS buy the machines with some of the maturity, perhaps an NF-like fund, and the whole thing would have costed 70 mil $ instead, and all neurons would benefit instead of 20 NPs. The cost of hosting a node is from 100$ to 250$, and the rest (~1250$) is return on investment.
BTC offers miners next to nothing for mining investments over 4y, unless you are near a power plant. Other blockchains offer you up to 10-20% a year. The IC offers a select few around 100% ROI a year with no price risks. It could have worked if the IC distributed up to 3 nodes per entity, but that’s not what happened.
Not a lot of thinking went into this. The people benefiting from this brainless design are now offering you another hot deal. To help them make some fees from their liquid staking protocol by giving up on your 8y neuron rewards. Again, offering you not to think a lot and discard everything like it’s a conspiracy theory.
I still haven’t seen Waterneuron team and CodeGov rubber stampers or DFINITY address any legitimate or valid arguments. Instead there is just deflection and noise from Waterneuron “grant” recipients while they help Leo and Enzo obfuscate tokenomics changes. Honestly disgusting behaviours.. is there any particular reason why these scammers haven’t been booted from IC
The code changes are not complete. This is well known by many people who care about the internet computer and take our responsibility of protecting the network seriously. Those of us with significant skin in the game knew that this proposal was premature and not ready for implementation. It was also obvious that it was not submitted by DFINITY. The decision to reject was self explanatory.
Not sure whats wrong about joining the Forum 2 weeks ago. I thought i might participate in the future - in particular due to recent discussions - so i signed up. But yeah, your respond just 100% outlines my initial post. The forum turned absolutely toxic to everyone not absolutely in line with one of the “parties” formed here. How do you think onboarding new people should work with such an toxic environment?
When you guys excaclty know where the problem is, why not just proposing to lower rewards e.g. for node providers instead of suppressing the whole ecosystem due to spreading FUD?
And to be honest, what you just pointed out is not the only thing here being unsustainable. We can also discuss, if 15%+ staking apy can be sustainable at all in the long run. The IC is quite a unicorn here compared to other serious L1s. But yeah i totally understand due to my very own interest, that this is not a popular topic because who wants to miss out his apy after locking up for 8years.
The neuron_minimum_dissolve_delay_to_vote_seconds parameter already exists in the governance canister. It’s not a hypothetical setting. The recent NNS frontend updates no longer hardcodes the minimum dissolve delay and uses the dynamic parameter, showing that the system is being actively updated to support the lower threshold. So saying the “code isn’t ready” may be outdated or inaccurate.
