I staked six months of ICP on WaterNeuron. The six-month period has just ended. I can’t see them anywhere. Do I need to wait?
Nicp grows in value. You’ll have to manually unstake to see the growth but you can sell on the open market to avoid waiting the unstake delay.
Just right now i would stake yourself and manage. There is a bit of a “wobble” happening now and it is probably better for you to do your own due diligence and vote as you wish.
There have been posts that have described how locking with WTN basically makes your vote their vote. It is late and I am tired so not going to get into a big hoo hah about this. As @mico requested on another post, I will consolidate all the issues that have been raised about WTN and the voting weights of the stakers in a new post tomorrow.
There has been much said in many posts and it is hard to keep track of. I will try to make that easier tomorrow.
Until then, I would unstake and vote on what you think is the right decision. If you don’t know, flip a coin. you will be right 50% of the time allegedly.
2 Likes
Why not stay on topic and help them understand the protocol instead of spreading fear with no evidence presented
why not stop pretending people are off topic when they say something you don’t like
1 Like
She didn’t answer the topic question of where their apy was.
Why not explain how the protocol works instead of pushing fear? (She took this as an opportunity to push her narrative instead of being impartial and explaining how the protocol works. Or she really has no clue how it functions.)
We know nicp doesn’t pay out maturity through nicp. It adds it to the 6mth neuron and when you unstake you get the portion of apy added to your dissolving neuron.
The value of nicp goes up and until you unstake your portion it continues to go up. Once you unstake at the protocol level you’ll get all the apy of icp you’ve earned while staking once that neuron is dissolved.
Other wise you can instantly sell on the open market to get that apy quicker ( maybe at a discount depending on the market rate.)
yeah you have to unstake it
1 Like
Isn’t the major value proposition of @WaterNeuron that you get all the benefits of staking while remaining liquid and free from governance decisions? If you care about voting, stake with the NNS. If not, WaterNeuron is perfect.
I find all this nonsense about ceding voting power to the DAO amusing. My understanding of @WaterNeuron was always that whether you vote or follow someone else, you are voting with the majority. Don’t like it? Don’t stake with the DAO. It’s that simple.
7 Likes
So how do you feel about them making some changes that allow liquid staking + the ability to vote according to how you want to.
2 Likes
I think actually the major value proposition would be when the 6 month neuron grows 18x the size of the 8 year neuron and then the nICP holders actually start paying the DAO to vote for them.
Unless im unclear on the math.
Staking ICP with WaterNeuron will never give you governance rights over the ICP tokens you stake. You have to own and stake WTN tokens to get those governance rights. This kind of change is not even on the table. If you think it is, then you are sadly mistaken. The whole point of staking with WaterNeuron is that you receive liquidity and staking rewards for your ICP stake in exchange for giving up the governance rights to those ICP tokens.
I think that perhaps when rewards netflow of icp from the 6 month to the DAO, exceeds the the rewards flowing into the 6 month neuron (from the 8 year) that the nICP holders should have voting rights. Because they are paying the DAO at that point. This occurs when the 6 month neuron grows 18x bigger than the 8 year. But im sure YOU understand that.
Or is your plan to launch water neuron 2.0 when the pyramid grows that high? Maybe in 10 years we can have 10 of these things each with 10% control of the network.
How about we stop arguing about how decentralized pyramids are and figure out how to build other shapes. We are better than this!
Do you remember your own saying…
“Early bird gets the worm.”
2 Likes
Sometimes you demonstrate an understanding and other times you just demonstrate incompetence. You are absolutely right that there is an nICP level at which WTN neuron owners will start to receive high rewards in exchange for the liquidity that is provided to nICP token owners. That’s part of the tradeoff that WaterNeuron offers.
There is no incentive to create a WaterNeuron 2.0. However, there is room for competition. I fully expect someone to come along some day with a liquid staking protocol that they believe offers a better option and they will compete with WaterNeuron.
I also fully expect for the NNS community to continue to raise concerns about the voting power that is held in WaterNeuron NNS neurons. I personally think it will prevent WaterNeuron from ever reaching that 10% target that everyone keeps talking about. Those concerns will drive important discussions that forces WaterNeuron to improve and become more transparent and for the community to learn more about how it actually works.
These dynamics will continue to move in a positive direction overall. Just writing it off as a pyramid or a cabel or whatever isn’t very productive though. WaterNeuron will continue to be an effective liquid staking platform and we will continue to improve because the community is rich with thought leaders in the ICP ecosystem who really care about doing the right thing and helping the ecosystem grow.
1 Like
awww thanks wenzel thats the nicest thing anyones ever said to me. It means a lot coming from you.
I hope in the future SNS founders, builders, engineers. Financiers, will also consider the ethical implications of what were building.
10 liquid staking protocols run by ICP oligarchs
Competing and vying for power in the nns is one of many possible futures. Just not the one i signed up for. Thanks.
1 Like
canister controlled neuron max should be 1% imo
2 Likes
Personally, I think that is a reasonable limit. However, DFINITY defined the target limit at 10% when they decided canister controlled neurons would be allowed. I was really surprised when it was set that high. Perhaps you should make this proposal in that thread and the community can revisit the discussion about it. @bjoernek led the discussion the first time around.
2 Likes
Ok as promised here is a summary of what my main issues are with WTN and ways in which I think it could be improved.
What is the issue?
The WaterNeuron (WTN) concept was created to minimize the potential harm caused by voters who only participate to farm rewards.
The idea is that passive voters — people who don’t want to engage — can still earn rewards without having to actively vote, and without skewing results through uninformed choices.
That’s great in theory.
Sadly the thing that isn’t really illustrated is what happens to the voting power. Individually, it may not seem like much… but aggregated across hundreds and thousands of small holders, the impact becomes enormous.
This isn’t a new concern. In fact, the same argument keeps coming up:
“The whole concept of WaterNeuron is buying votes and centralizing decision making.”
These are not just my words. They’ve been typed by @Mpeiz, @Lorimer, @WebTreeSoftwareSolut, and others.
Could it happen?
Take a look at the chart @Mico shared — it shows that if developers and whales (of which it is not transparent how many individuals there are, so it is hard to say how probable that is) voted together, they would control 62.4% of the vote.
That’s a huge concern that we should ALL agree is a problem.
Where is the proof?
Whether or not someone literally controls 51% of the WTN isn’t the issue.
The point is that the risk EXISTS, and if it that happens down the line, it could have catastrophic implications for the NNS.
We can’t just hope for the best. Something needs to be done.
I know there have been arguments that all the WTN holders have locked neurons, but they can be sold and nobody would be any the wiser.
How can we fix it?
I am sure this isnt the only solution, but it seems the most obvious.
Have the WTN neuron vote proportionally to the WTN holder’s wishes, not just using the majority as one single vote. That would solve many of the issues that people have with WTN. You can then multiple each WTN holders wishes by the additional voting power accumulated for the staked liquid ICP.
Then you avoid the risk of a 51% majority taking all 100% of the voting power.
I know other solutions have also been suggested, but it is time to stop pretending there isn’t a flaw in the WTN concept, but instead work together to find a solution that means we do not need to trust people.
That is the whole point of the IC right?
2 Likes
In addition to the ethical dilemnas i already presented in this thread i want to emphasize that
The 51% majority in WTN already takes 100% of the voting power.
It doesnt matter if they are aligned intentionally to do so. The result is the same.
So you have absolutely no proof of your husbands claims that a secret cabal owns 51% of the wtn vote?
He can now kindly stop accusing them and maybe work towards a solution that isn’t him trying to kill the project.
Adam and gold dao account for just over 11% of that whale allocation in the graph. I’m sure you knew this already so I wonder why you made it seem like all the whales are unknown and can collude.
Your response also doesn’t show the fact that the only way to gather 51% is through voter following. As seen with Adam trying to 51% attack the dao.
No one has said the process couldn’t be improved but it’s definitely hard to focus on solutions while your husband is attacking the dao, throwing around accusations to spread fear, and slandering other investors because he doesn’t like them. If he were genuine in finding a solution why not join the wtn telegram and discus with the community to hear the data and facts so we can all work for a better future.
2 Likes