I have not been spreading any false news of any kind whatsoever. I think for myself and donāt jump to conclusions thatās all. I have contributed a lot to the IC. I am invested heavily in it and have been promoting it for awhile now on social media and elsewhere as well as have been trying to help SNS projects improve. I havenāt lost any Trax tokens and am still invested in the project. I feel strongly that I have added value. I donāt want to see all this infighting. I would like to see progress, shipped dapps like Dragginz, and working together. Thatās all. If even a single innocent person is falsely accused or scapegoated, that is wrong. We just need to tread carefully is my point with spreading possibly false conspiracy theories. That was my main point. I do not want to see Adam/Donna leave the IC. I do value them dearly but rushing to judgement is dangerous is my point.
The topic is Rethink Tokenomics changes. Not Adam and Donna
You have accused many such people before as well on various forum posts without having meaningful discussion ever. We all would value if you can come up with better and meaningful discussions for the community instead of just blaming each and every project and person including TRAX. Donāt add any input if you donāt have anything meaningful to contribute.
Well when you sling heavy handed conspiracy theories in your proposal, it unfortunately is partly the case and that was my point with my comments. I have said what I wanted to say. sigh. I am no longer a part of this discussion so have fun with it.
Incorrect. If anything, I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt before jumping to any conclusions. Thank you for your input despite it being an incorrect assessment now labelling me as an enemy of the chain (which I am surely not). Donāt become another blind member of the āLord of the Fliesā here please. Take care.
I voted REJECT on the proposal to reduce minimum dissolve delay.
I voted ADOPT on the proposal to rethink.
Politics aside, the primary reason being that economically it disproportionately rewards short term stakers. I.E. it halves the time for 100% rewards without properly rescaling. This was thoroughly discussed and @infu proposed a great solution here:
Im interested in @krzysztofzelazko opinion/justification because it was his known neuron that submitted the proposal to reduce the minimum dissolve delay to 3 months.
This is to be or not to be for ICP - 8year stakers should be number 1 priority- Borovan reveals such a dark network of malicious consortium he should get Dfinity role for that - one of the biggest advocates for ICP to suceed - I voted against 3 months change
@dominicwilliams @Jan please review all @borovan findings and help protect ICP from Coinbase / Waterneuron risks
Imagine the effect on Borovan leaving. First pulls all liquidity from DEX-es and many DAO treasury, than sells all liquid tokens, most projects drop up to 99%. As He has lot of staked tokens, no one will be buying and pumping those projects ever again. The damage to ICP ecosystem will be huge, this is why ecosystem must not depend on 1 unstable whale.
Do people dare to buy into projects that Borovan is involved?
Even on the Water Neuron Telegram group the official stance from Water Neuron is to vote no on the proposal to reduce minimum dissolve delay.
What a take without intellectual thinking involved. In a free market one can buy whatever he likes how much as he likes - its called open market for a reason - go in a closed market to control it - or stop posting such posts
You answered your question. Get more people who want to grow an ecosystem, not people who want to make quick, risk-free profits.
If Adam leaves, IC will be back to the Stone Age.
Adam hasnāt launched his project lol. New investors will take his place. He isnāt a god nor is he the reason icp has devs.
When it comes to how voting rewards should be distributed, I personally think it makes the most sense for them to start just above 0% at the minimum dissolve delay, and then increase linearly up to the maximum reward at the full 8-year dissolve delay.
This way, people are still incentivized to commit long-term, but thereās also a fair path for those who want to participate without locking up for years. Itās a smoother curve that avoids hard cliffs and makes the system more flexible - especially if we want broader participation.
I can see why someone would think this, and its more simple to understand.
Personally i prefer quadratic or similar functions that opt to steepen the curve towards longer term participants as this encourages long term participation.
The āsplitā function suggested by @infu would ensure that people who already committed long term continue to operate under the same terms they agreed. While allowing a āfairā way for short term stakers to participate.
Either way I believe it is prudent that a new function be agreed upon and implemented before changing the minimum dissolve delay.
Hey cat looks like you got an old account unblocked? Congrats! (What happened to āvolibearā?)
Just saying Adam leaving wonāt make icp go into a āStone Ageā thatās dramatic.