Hey @diegop would you please clarify what this proposal means. I can envision two options (described below) that an exchange like Coinbase could provide. Option 1 seems like a very attractive option because it would improve decentralization and quickly move us closer to the 90% staking goal. I think this should be a high priority if the intent of the Rosetta API aligns with Option 1. Option 2 seems like a disaster to decentralization because it would put exchanges in a position to have a lot of voting power using other people’s money. I would not want Option 2 at all.
Option 1: Coinbase offers a front end for staking where a user is subject to all the same rules as we are with the NNS. Their ICP is actually staked in their own neurons and they have full control of their voting power and their vote following is set up by default in the same way as the NNS app default configurations.
Option 2: Coinbase offers a staking return that is slightly less than governance rewards. They take customer ICP and stake it in neurons that Coinbase owns and Coinbase controls the voting power. Coinbase earns the voting rewards and redistributes to their customers at a discounted rate to account for administrative costs and a small Coinbase profit. The key concern here would be that Coinbase would own the voting power that comes from other peoples investment in ICP.