Request for feedback: Compounding Maturity Proposal

I hope that whatever the outcome of the vote is the people who proposed this realize that if they see such a pushback from a proposal they should at least try to understand the concerns against it and adopt/modify it to satisfy the majority of the community.

At the moment we seem to have a proposal that is dividing the ICP community and will enforce a major and unwanted change in the way the system works to ~half of the voters.

4 Likes

And it seems like DFINITY/ICA will probably come in and create a much more drastic win, since they just recently started voting on proposals.

Based on recent activity they seem to have around 25% voting power.

2 Likes
  1. Generally technology and innovations are ahead of the law. First you invent the car and then you create traffic laws. It seems to me that this whole issue is nothing more than the clarification against the RSI of at what point a tax should really be recorded (in a generic way that works for any country), since the tokenomic models, apart from being new, can be Unlike traditional models, it is necessary to clarify at what point the rewards are actually available to be recorded. That will help investors to pay taxes at the end when the reward is actually available, and not before.
  2. The other point is more like a Taxtobin, +5%, -5% depending on the trend.
    If the proposals were separate, I would vote “yes” on the first and “no” on the second.
3 Likes

I agree Dfinity will likely be the deciding factor (if they choose to vote). I do hope they vote. I think it’s important to go on record with these things.

Do we know how Dfinity or the ICA’s vote gets decided? Is it an executive only decision?

My understanding is that DFINITY doesn’t vote on governance proposals. At least I don’t think they have yet, as of a few months ago…

They recently started voting on them again. Diego said they would be posting something about their plans soon

https://forum.dfinity.org/t/what-process-does-the-dfinity-foundation-use-to-vote-on-nns-proposals/11385/6?u=lightninglad91

2 Likes

Ah gotcha, didn’t see that. I mean, it makes sense… not tenable for DFINITY to abstain forever.

2 Likes

I agree. I think it makes sense

1 Like
  1. I reflected a little more on point 2, the taxtobin models, they did not work very well because they were applied to the pure speculation of a currency, in this case we are talking about increasing and cutting monetary mass by +,- 5% on the market trend, it could work. It should also be noted that ICP use cases should be increased where it implies a token burn.
1 Like

Good to know, but still if this proposal passes we’d need a way to merge maturity between 2 neurons, cause spawning a neuron means being subject to the price modulation, which could be annoying for those who compound on a daily basis.

Very balanced view. On the part of having 5 different proposals, I would say that any proposal is good, even ill intentioned ones, many of which we may be seeing in future from community members. It is up to the voters to decipher and adopt or reject.

1 Like

I’ve requested that we add an implementation item for transferring non-staked maturity between neurons.

1 Like

FYI, To US tax payer:
the 2021 version of IRS Form 1040 now asks recipients if, at any point throughout the year, they have received, sold, exchanged or disposed of another financial interest through virtual currency. Users must then check the “Yes” or “No” box in response. The IRS further proves their crackdown by placing this question on the form, directly below a taxpayer’s name and address, a location that can’t be missed. The language has also been clarified to specify that only taxable events, including receiving cryptocurrency as payment, airdrops, exchanging different cryptocurrencies, selling assets, earning from mining and staking, would be classified as a “yes” on the updated form.

By omitting to define all possible staking reward forms, they include all staking reward. Can be a token, a car, a chair, maturity, everything.

Please be careful before locking everything for 8 years. You will need much money to pay back to IRS, with compounded penalties and interest. When this start to happen, in few years, I can only imagine the disaster for ICP.
The debate is over, the proposal will obviously pass because of so many US investors thinking they will trick the IRS. This is not FUD. This is only reality.

2 Likes

Hi Befi, this question is out of scope for the current thread, since we are only discussing the compounding maturity proposal here. But the short answer is that you cannot merge neurons created with the NNS Dapp into Ledger hardware wallet neurons.

I think the omission of maturity → staked ICP and staked maturity → staked ICP really make this proposal a lot less attractive to me. I really like the goal of “How to compound maturity with the least manual effort”, but suppose I want to

  • compound maturity
  • avoid one big +/- 5% gamble, instead i want to spread my risk

Then it looks to me like this proposal does not actually simplify that workflow. It looks like the proposal in its current form will pass, but I hope we will still consider adding those extra paths. Turning on “auto-compounding” and once in a while clicking the button converting staked maturity into staked ICP (to take the +/- 5% events regularly for smaller amounts) would be a very cool option, and much more convenient than spawning / dissolving / disbursing / topping up regularly.

10 Likes

As DFINITY/ICA will probably be deciding the vote, I urge them and @dominicwilliams to look at the large amount of opposition to this proposal and to please reconsider.

Also consider that cycledao.xyz, ICP Maximalist Network, and ICDevs have voted no.

9 Likes

+1 on this. I think that with some changes and incorporating feedback this proposal can be remade and pass with a big majority. There is a few good ideas in it.

Let’s get back to the drawing table

7 Likes

It will passed by big majority at the end. @dominicwilliams and Dfinity will jump in the vote at the end if they need to make it pass.
If it was on a per neuron or individual vote, it would never pass.
This is the most obvious case where this kind of democracy is a total fail.
When voting for a political party or president, you don’t have more voting power because you are more rich.
Does people start to see the huge flaw with this voting system?
EDIT: I have to admit this topic had made me realize how bad a voting system based on wealth is not democracy at all.

2 Likes

If you want to compare the NNS voting system to a traditional system, it’s nothing like the one-person-one-vote system that’s common in democratic governments. What it’s more akin to is stockholder voting in a corporation, where the number of votes a shareholder has corresponds to the number of shares they own (like NNS voting power corresponds to staked ICP), and it’s common for shareholders to vote by proxy, assigning their voting rights another party (like NNS following).

3 Likes

Hey. @coteclaude …I personally am starting to feel your comments on this topic to be a little bit of a nuisance.
First you started by saying that it was breaking the law, that it was TAX evasion attempt when in fact it was none of it.
Now you are saying that is Wealth base democracy.
Well…I think that the only way to have a real democratic voting system, the way you are insinuating is to have every neuron owner properly identified and not privacy. My question is …are you willing to give up your anonymity for the sake of a better voting system.
I am not 100% in favor of this proposal…but your comments are rather extreme.

4 Likes