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.
+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.
Letâs 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 donât 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, itâs nothing like the one-person-one-vote system thatâs common in democratic governments. What itâs 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 itâs common for shareholders to vote by proxy, assigning their voting rights another party (like NNS following).
Hey. @coteclaude âŠI 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.
WellâŠI 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 âŠare you willing to give up your anonymity for the sake of a better voting system.
I am not 100% in favor of this proposalâŠbut 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 âmaturityâ for 1 year, and then the next year change it so that you receive rewards as âstaked maturityâ. 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, wouldnât that break the whole assumption of staking? If you decide to stake maturity, then my understanding is that you shouldnât be able to take out anything from your stake until your stake duration has elapsed.
Darien
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 donât mint and combined your ICP, you donât 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 donât 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.
Donât worry, in 10 years when all of humanityâs 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 itâs still a way to âcash outâ your staked maturity. In fact, itâs 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.
The way I read the proposal, exchange maturity would only convert maturity into staked maturity and release staked ICP. Exchange maturity is not a mechanism for liquidating staked maturity. Staked maturity is staked and can only be liquidated by dissolving and disbursing.the neuron.
I think if you exchange_maturity for staked ICP there is no price modulation because the ICP isnât being newly minted. If you donât have any more staked ICP then, based on my reading, you would have to disburse_maturity and be subject to the 7 day timer and modulation.
Yeah, the proposal itself does not allow neuron holders to liquidate staked maturity mid-stake. I was addressing the hypothetical situation brought up where people wanted the ability to convert staked maturity into staked ICP, which I think would essentially create a bypass mechanism where now neuron holders can liquidate their staked maturity mid-stake (via the exchange_maturity function).
This proposal does not allow the liquidation of âstaked maturityâ. Once maturity is staked, it remains staked until the neuron is dissolved and disbursed. exchange_maturity has no impact on this.
What @Manu is referring to is that if you enable compounding maturity, you will start to accumulate staked maturity. Since that kind of maturity can only be converted into ICP at exactly one time (disbursal), you are taking the risk of a -5% discount on the entire amount.
If, on the other hand, there were a way to convert staked maturity into staked ICP â with the required modulation â then I could do so weekly or monthly and average out the discount.
Nothing in what Iâve said above allows the extraction or receipt of maturity in the form of ICP any earlier than what is currently possible. Itâs just a difference as to whether you hold the extra voting power earned through maturity as âstaked maturityâ or as âstaked ICPâ. The two are equivalent from the perspective of governance, but not equivalent in terms of market risk due to the modulation factor in the proposal.
If this proposal passes how fast will the changes be implemented? Will we have the option to not use them (look at the amount of NO votes) and keep the normal way?
Also will there be a very detailed guide and UI for people who end up using what you want to change here? Itâs really complicated and hard to understand from a user/investor point of view.
may i know if there any change for the community fund banner within the new staked maturity?
I would expect the changes to be implemented fairly quickly, but there would not be the option to âdo things the old wayâ, because it would harm the tax argument if you had the option to avoid modulation. Is that what you meant by the âold wayâ?
The new UI that incorporates these features is quite nice, actually, and the lack of a separate reward neuron simplifies things considerably. No matter whether this proposal passes or not, I do hope another proposal will offer that functionality.
Come on, you know itâs going to pass, thereâs no âwhether this proposal passes or notâ. Iâve been tracking the way these votes go; the whales keep the count close to maintain a charade of decentralisation, but they have plenty of voting power held in reserve. We saw how it played out in the ICDevs case. There is clearly a cartel of whales who coordinate voting in these matters.
As I have said before, whales are not an issue in themselves, every blockchain has them. The problem with Dfinty is that they designed the tokenomics so that the same whales will be doing the same stuff eight years down the line.
Iâve asked a number of questions on this thread which you yourself said were worth answering. But they remain unanswered. Nevertheless, like black holes are bordered by bright event horizons, Dfinityâs very silence and opacity sends out a clearly visible message.
After the way recent votes have played out, I have decided not to increase my stake in the token as planned, even though the current price is very tempting. No matter how pathbreaking the tech may be, there are non-tech issues that make me not want to put too many eggs in the IC basket.
The tax argument is ridiculous and one of my main oppositions to this proposal.
The lack of a separate reward neuron is indeed nice and would love to see it.
