Request for feedback: Compounding Maturity Proposal

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


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.


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.


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, ICP Maximalist Network, and ICDevs have voted no.


+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


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.


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).


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.


As a workaround, you could toggle where to receive neuron rewards. For example, you can tell NNS to give you rewards as “maturity” for 1 year, and then the next year change it so that you receive rewards as “staked maturity”. This toggle is part of this proposal, and can be switched at any time.

I think if you were able to convert staked maturity to anything else, wouldn’t that break the whole assumption of staking? If you decide to stake maturity, then my understanding is that you shouldn’t be able to take out anything from your stake until your stake duration has elapsed.

I am not extreme as I truly believe in everything I post.
You understand that the extra 27 millions of ICP still in form of maturity will have voting power with this proposal, right? All actual neurons will see their daily rewards cut quiet a big chunk (25 to 35% cut to my opinion)
After this vote, what would prevent the whales to , only as an example, make a future proposal for removing the rights of all small neurons, let say less then 25k icp, to vote and keep all the rewards and voting for them? I am not saying it will happen but technically, it could. And because technically it could, this is very bad to me.
The other thing is I locked my ICP in 8 years with the conditions and process at time, where if you don’t mint and combined your ICP, you don’t vote and neither get rewards. Now the conditions will change and this is not what I have signed for. At least, give investors an opportunity to unlock our neurons and run out of this.
And finally, yes I strongly believe programming to evade tax is not legal and I don’t want be associated directly or indirectly with this kind of organization. My problem is I have no way out.

Yes, I admit I find about everything bad in this proposal.

My post can be a nuisance for you but may also be some very good thinking taught for many others as I have receive many likes in many of my posts.


Don’t worry, in 10 years when all of humanity’s software is written in Motoko, we will look back on this day and laugh.


There is a misunderstanding here. @Manu is not militating about the possibility of converting Staked Maturity into LIQUID icp, but the one of converting Staked Maturity into STAKED icp.

Right, but you can still withdraw staked ICP via the new exchange_maturity function, so it’s still a way to “cash out” your staked maturity. In fact, it’s arguably a more tax-liable way of cashing out, since exchange_maturity bypasses the +/-5% modulation.

The staked maturity is impossible to cash out, you only can exchange your initial staked ICP for staked maturity using liquid maturity. You seem to call « staked maturity » the accumulated liquid maturity, that you could exchange for liquid ICP, as we always could. Anyway, the same quantity of staked material would be maintained, at the minimum.

So there would not be more cash out of staked item, that there is currently. But I see what you mean.

We are just for a possibility to autocompound AND eventually exclusively have staked ICP rather than necessarily having irreductible staked maturity as soon as we would have used the auto compound function.

Plus, the day when You have 0 icp in your neuron, and only staked maturity and liquid maturity, what you see as a way of cashing out staked item would not be possible anymore.

To give a limit case, we should be able to convert a neuron empty of staked ICP and full of staked maturity into a neuron full of staked ICP and empty of staked maturity.

1 Like