I’ve been off grid for a while and when I came back, I saw “staked maturity”.
I have no ideas what it is and why I can’t merge maturity as usual??
Also, a simple comment: can you guy just stop messing around with these things or at least slowing it down and focus on the delivery of BTC integration? It’s really confusing.
Related proposal, discussion, update post etc. there you go Compounding Maturity - NNS implementation update - #48 by bjoernek
Yeah The proposal to implement these things have passed months ago.
Am I wrong to say that, the staked maturity can now only be “converted” into ICP whenever the neuron is dissolved? Thanks.
What they did here is compleet BS…
It was good before like it was in my opinion.
I’m glad i didn’t staked everything.
I draw the line here, and i am done with it.
Good luck to you all…
This is correct! Once the neuron is dissolved, the maturity is unstaked again and you can spawn it, which would convert it to ICP.
Don’t like this… Why do you peeps keep changing stuff and using confusing or vague language on the nns.
I’m a long time supporter, but stuff like that makes me quite irritably. Just not professional.
I thought the maturity would go to the neuron. So it does not. Why? for a little bit of more voting rights?
Why??? Stake maturity? 99% of people don’t care about stuff like that.
That is a RTFM answer 99% of people wil not appreciate.
It is implemented too confusingly on the nns, the language is just not clear enough (the mouseovers are not helping much)
Hey. I realised I was being too harsh. I hope I did not offend the peole that worked hard on this. The implementation is done very well, I’m sure, but … the UI aspect is lacking. (IMO, again)
I mean… The ‘old’ way was changed without any fanfare and … users are habit-animals (I’m not sure what the expression is in English… People tend to get set in a mindset, habit, and if stuff changes they tend to choose what they think is ‘the same’ )
so one sees a checkbox 'automatically stake … And the mind goes ‘blank’ thinking it is the old way but automatically (cool!) …And the other option called ‘stake maturity’ must be… the old way but manually, no?
… No .
And so the user clicks ‘stake maturity’ because that newfangled automatical thing… Let’s wait a while to make sure it works… … And … Hey? My ICP is not added… there is that new number… staked maturity.
‘huh?’ the user thinks. ‘why does that not go into my neuron like it used to do, I did nothing different?’
… And I’m afraid a lot of people (non hardcore Dfinity readers but the ‘common’ crypto dabblers ) don’t care much about that weird thing maturity but just want their yummy ICP added to the heap.
Again, I hope I was not too harsh. I know this stuff is not trivial to implement and is quaranteed 3000% more complex than I can imagine. Just trying to give the perspective of Joe the common crypto casual
I work in a uni library that writes their own software and user interfaces etc, and we have discussions like that all the time I am a end user in said library, not a programmer, but we sit together a lot and it’s heartbreaking how some devs get piled upon because the ui is not to the liking of one or other dept…
Thanks Bjoernek for the response.
I now understand how it works.
Just one comment to the Dfinity team: I don’t think it is healthy at all for the team to mess around too frequently with the staking mechanism of ICP.
I really feel very annoyed and to some extents, “cheated”, when significant changes like this have been implemented too frequently in the NNS. At this point, one has to wonder: what will prevent the Dfinity team to implement a feature that goes completely against their right? You can’t ask for people to hard-lock their token for multi-years, then make changes that basically change everything like this. And everybody understands that, with your voting power, what you want to do will be voted for.
There are even open discussions in this forum on how to implement the maturity modulation to avoid tax burden, among other things. This is incredibly annoying to say the least. The Dfinity network and its key features (such as staking) are supposed to be neutral. How people deal with their tax burden are their own responsibilities. I think it is crystal clear for everyone in this space and the dev team shouldn’t even care about these issues. Unfortunately the Dfinity team has spent so much effort on it. And where will this go? It just opens new problems and make new users confused. And certainly it won’t help getting new people to join this eco-system and its community.
Thank you @Rxke for elaborating a bit more on which aspects of the change you found confusing! We have started some discussions with the UX team to review how the presentation can be improved and we will keep the community in the loop.
Yes, very much so. I think that is not really… correct. When a big change comes that affects locked tokens, people will say ‘I did not sign up for this’ and be technically right, I think?
This is a tad annoying to deal with the old system was perfectly fine.
If we can stop messing with the tokenomics and base fundamental applications that would be great.
I personally will resort to spawn neuron, dissolve and and then add the icp to my main neuron.
Who is to say that in a few years time, some sort of DAO vote comes in saying the maturity won’t be converted to the correct 100% icp that has been accrued for the neuron holders, but to 90% or whatever to fight inflation.
Not your icp in the neuron, not your coin.
To add to the above,
Icp should be constructed and edited on user friendliness not everything needs to be working for ppl that have a iq of 200, changing this little thing is an example of this.
I remember when this vote was done several months ago, didn’t thing anything of it, now in hindsight now that it’s live, it wasn’t a good decision, coming from a normal person that does not code etc.
For me the stacking system is better now. Thanks DFINITY.
Can “Automatically stake new maturity” checkbox be unselected once it is enabled??
Yes, it can be unselected.