@jwiegley is it safe to assume that topping up a neuron will work the same way it does today? The newly staked ICP would be added to the Staked ICP bucket and voting power would increase accordingly?
Yes, topping up a neuron with ICP will increase the staked ICP of that neuron.
2 Likes
I know its not part of the proposal but you should consider adding the possibility to merge maturity in another neuron with the initial release, with the current workflow one would have to spawn a neuron, then dissolve it and add the ICP to the neuron stake, which is tedious to do. With the new workflow it will be more problematic due to price modulation.
Actually, with the current governance there is already an easier path:
- Spawn the maturity into a reward neuron.
- Merge the reward neuron immediately into a target neuron.
1 Like
^^ Apologies @Zane there is a shorter path now using the new Merge neuron command (Iâd answered otherwise in another thread).
This command hasnât quite made it into the nns app UI just yet though, itâs on its way: https://github.com/dfinity/nns-dapp/pull/539
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
- 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.
- The other point is more like a Taxtobin, +5%, -5% depending on the trend.
If the proposals were separate, I would vote âyesâ on the first and ânoâ 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 itâs important to go on record with these things.
Do we know how Dfinity or the ICAâs vote gets decided? Is it an executive only decision?
My understanding is that DFINITY doesnât vote on governance proposals. At least I donât think they have yet, as of a few months agoâŚ
They recently started voting on them again. Diego said they would be posting something about their plans soon
2 Likes
Ah gotcha, didnât 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
- 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 weâd 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
Iâve 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 âYesâ or âNoâ box in response. The IRS further proves their crackdown by placing this question on the form, directly below a taxpayerâs name and address, a location that canât 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 âyesâ 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 â staked ICP and staked maturity â staked ICP really make this proposal a lot less attractive to me. I really like the goal of âHow to compound maturity with the least manual effortâ, 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 âauto-compoundingâ 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