stakeGeek is a decentralized application (dApp) within the Internet Computer (ICP) ecosystem, designed to provide a liquid staking solution for ICP tokens. It allows users to stake their ICP and receive xICP tokens at a fixed 1:1 exchange rate. All ICP staked on stakeGeek go to a common neuron (non-dissolving, with dissolve delay of 6 months), which votes on governance proposals and earns staking rewards. These rewards are auto-staked into the neuron, new xICP tokens are minted in the amount of the rewards, and then they are distributed proportionally to xICP holders. APR (Annual Percentage Rate) for staking on stakeGeek is equal to the native staking rewards offered by the Internet Computer.
Users can leverage their xICP tokens for fast liquidity by trading them on the open market. By selling xICP tokens, users can avoid the 6-month dissolve period associated with direct unstaking and quickly convert their staked assets into liquid ICP.
xICP token uses the ICRC-1, ICRC-2 and ICRC-3 standards, ensuring compatibility with various DeFi protocols within the ICP ecosystem. A minimal transaction fee of 0.0001 xICP applies to token transactions. For staking and unstaking 3 transaction fees are charged.
The platform is currently in beta as a proof of concept, allowing the verification of technical implementation and functionality. This phase ensures that all processes are working correctly. During the beta version, common stakeGeek neuron will follow GEEKFACTORY known neuron to ensure a 100% participation rate in governance activities. Also during the beta period, no additional platform or reward fees are applied, with potential fees subject to DAO governance decisions post-transition.
We are still researching the best approach and need a bit more time to finalize the details. We are also considering a non-SNS DAO if it provides better security for our use-case.
We have researched and considered various approaches and have chosen the 1:1 fixed ratio. This 1:1 stable unstaking ratio makes it possible to use xICP as a payment currency in the ICP ecosystem. Additionally this way is more transparent and predictable for all users. Other approaches have their own drawbacks which can be discussed further.
It’s best to wait until WaterNeuron is launched so we can make a fair comparison based on actual implementations. For now, comparing theoretical concepts may not be productive.
Hi,
Appreciate to see a solution to provide a liquid staking solution for staked ICP tokens.
Is the a mechanism to withdraw xICP to ICP at 1:1 rate?
If not, stakeGeek has a plan to build a liquid pool (xICP-ICP) in Dexs? How to maintain a fixed rate without withdrawal mechanism?
How community take control of the staking neuron?
When community members vote to convert Maturity/(the IC network’s staking rewards) into ICP tokens in some periods, it has a 95%–105% conversion rate. How is it mapped to the amount of xICPs?
There are two options: withdraw at a 1:1 fixed rate in 6 months using native staking mechanics, or sell xICP for ICP immediately on the open market at the current market price. We expect the difference to be minimal.
You can already swap or trade on Icdex and Icpswap. We are working to attract more liquidity providers and market makers.
The entire stakeGeek protocol is designed with DAO control in mind. Currently, around 10 canisters support the protocol and its functionality. All of these canisters, including the one that controls the staking neuron, will be placed under DAO control.
Let’s take an example. Someone wants to unstake their 100 xICP in 1 year and convert them back to ICP. When the user presses the Unstake button, 100 xICP are burned, and a new neuron is split from the common neuron. For instance, this new neuron consists of 92 staked ICP and 8 staked maturity, totaling 100 ICP.
After 6 months, the new neuron is dissolved, and 92 ICP are automatically disbursed to the user’s wallet. Spawning the maturity will take an additional 7 days, after which the remaining ICP is automatically disbursed to the user’s wallet. The maturity amount is subject to a ±5% modulation, which can affect the total ICP received. This modulation mechanism is governed by the IC protocol and cannot be influenced by stakeGeek.
We also expect that the need for unstaking will be minimal because it will be much easier to sell xICP on the open market. As more liquidity providers and market makers join the ecosystem, the efficiency and reliability of trading xICP will improve, further reducing the need for traditional unstaking.
Thank you for your reply.
By the way, have you ever or planned to calculate /test the neutral exchange ratio range of xICP-ICP in open market. I mean the Liquidity discount value during the unstaking period in native IC network. The ratio represent the time value and other factors.
Eg: You unstake 100 xICP in native IC network and waiting for half an year to dissolve. As opposed to that you will get 104 xICP when prefer remain staking after 6 months.
As of today stakeGeek common neuron follows GEEKFACTORY known neuron to ensure a 100% participation rate in governance activities. You can check GEEKFACTORY neuron description and thesis on vpGeek.app
After the beta phase and transition to DAO, the voting mechanism can be adjusted and is subject to DAO decisions. Potential voting mechanisms include:
Following One or Multiple Neurons: The common neuron can follow the voting decisions of one or more established neurons, allowing for flexibility and strategic alignment with different governance perspectives.
Each Token Holder Voting Pass-Through: Individual xICP token holders can vote directly on governance proposals, with their votes being aggregated and passed through to the common neuron(s).
“Neutral” Voting: The common neuron can be split into two equal parts, with one part voting YES and the other voting NO on each proposal, ensuring neutrality.
Default Voting Pattern and DAO Override: A default voting pattern can be established, which the common neuron will follow unless overridden by a DAO vote or xICP holders majority vote.
Mix of Voting Mechanisms: A combination of the above methods or another innovative mechanism can be implemented to optimize governance participation and decision-making.
These options provide flexibility and adaptability, allowing the DAO to choose the most effective governance strategy as the stakeGeek ecosystem evolves.
We believe open market will self-regulate. As liquidity increases and more participants engage in trading, the market will find an equilibrium price that reflects the true value of xICP.
Someone had a question about infinite loop possibilities of this 1:1 staking on OC.
"Hey guys, hope you’re all well. I’ve got potentially a game-changer if used correctly, but I’d love for someone to confirm my theory for earning additional staking rewards.
StakeGeek allows you to get liquid ICP (xICP) from staking ICP. Could I, in theory, stake 100 ICP, get xICP, swap xICP for ICP, then lock that ICP in a NNS neuron?
My research (and chat gpt lol) says yes, but seems too good to be true.
(I know I will need the original xICP I get from staking to unlock my staked ICP).
Looking for your explanation on it but 1:1 means at the end, you have to buy extra xICP to unstake. Am I missing something, because while you do this to increase your stake and attempt to game your rewards, would you ever make extra ICP?
I know people try this on AAVE but use two different cryptos and end up liquidated quickly.
After selling xICP on the market, you will have 100 ICP and no xICP. You can only unstake your original ICP if you have xICP tokens. By using the 100 ICP you received to buy another 100 xICP, you can initiate the unstaking process. However, you will only have 100 xICP tokens available for unstaking. At each step, the total value of your holdings remains approximately the same, around 100 ICP, depending on the market exchange rate.
From my example, it seems you could stake 10 ICP - get 10xicp- sell for 10 ICP - stake ICP (20 total) - get 10xicp repeat.
You now have “100 ICP staked” earning rewards. When is time to install you reverse the process. But 10xicp - unstake 10icp… Back to your original amount of 10 ICP. BUT you would have been earning rewards on 100 ICP during that time.
Please let me know if that’s right. It makes sense but also I’m sure I’m missing something
Your example has a flaw. When you stake 10 ICP and get 10 xICP, selling the 10 xICP for 10 ICP means you only have 10 ICP, not 20. You need xICP to unstake ICP. If you sell xICP, you can’t unstake the original ICP. So, you can’t multiply your staking rewards this way.
I’ll ask the same question I asked the WaterNeuron team if that’s okay. Doesn’t liquid staking undo the point of staking? ICP is staked for voting in order to tie voters to the outcome of their vote. This liquidity problem is by design isn’t it? If it’s a real problem, wouldn’t the solution be to remove the need to stake tokens in the first place, rather than to design a system to subvert the way that staking was intended?
My interpretaption here is that StakeGeek is effectively buying votes and voting however it wants with the community’s voting power (but don’t worry because it votes 100% of the time, no matter what, because that’s all anyone needs to be concerned about…?). Please help me see how this is a good thing from the point of view of governance decentralisation.
After the beta phase and transition to DAO, the voting mechanism can be adjusted and is subject to DAO decisions
It sounds like StakeGeek considers this to be a mere implementation detail. But in my opinion getting this aspect right is pivotal to determining whether this project is actually good for the long term health of the network (given the governance implications).
Following One or Multiple Neurons
But who would decide which neurons and how would this be updated? (Not all DAOs are created equal - please keep reading)
Each Token Holder Voting Pass-Through
If I understand correctly you’re suggesting allowing the individuals who have no long-term stake in the network to make important governance decisions. Do you not see an issue that these individuals would not be bound to the outcome of their vote (as their stake is liquid and they can leave at any time)?
“Neutral” Voting
This is the only remotely palatable option in my opinion (all the other alternatives presented appear to suffer the problems described above). Nevertheless this is a bit of a cop out. It’s not counter productive, but it doesn’t really sound productive either (it doesn’t advance the state of ICP governance in any way as far as I can tell).
I’m asking for clarity on these aspects because I think they’re vitally important to get right. I asked the same sorts of questions to the WaterNeuron team, who had already thought all of these issues through and appear to have a very well considered solution - solving the liquidity problem without upending the state of governance (more likely than not I believe their liquid staking solution will improve the state of ICP governance).
Full disclosure: I’ve invested in WaterNeuron. My intentions with this post are simply to get clarity on a topic that I think requires close attention and scrutiny (governance, and how it’s managed)
Hi @Lorimer. Thank you for your detailed questions and feedback. We’d like to address your points and provide some clarity on our approach:
Our project is currently in beta to validate the technical implementation and understand the product-market fit. This phase is crucial for refining our solution based on real-world usage and feedback.
In this beta version, we decided to simplify the voting logic by following the GeekFactory neuron. This is explicitly stated as a temporary measure. We are not buying voting power; instead, we are ensuring consistent participation in governance during this early phase.
We presented multiple options as examples, acknowledging their respective pros and cons. The final mechanism could possibly include ideas beyond those we’ve initially outlined.
At GeekFactory, we have successfully launched 7 projects on the Internet Computer (IC) and have a dedicated team working full-time in ICP ecosystem since the Genesis. Accusations that we are trying to undermine IC governance or put the ecosystem at risk are unfounded. We are one of the most committed teams in this space.
Governance is a critical aspect of stakeGeek, arguably the most important. However, it is also complex. We haven’t announced a final governance model because this requires input from a broad group of stakeholders. We are actively discussing this with key ecosystem players and the Foundation to ensure the final implementation is the best it can be.
Thank you for your interest and for raising these important points. We value the community’s input and are committed to transparency as we move forward.
). Please help me see how this is a good thing from the point of view of governance decentralisation.