Let’s be blunt: the ICP staking system today is like one large communal pot where the amount of food (rewards) is strictly defined and decreases daily. When a new investor arrives and “locks” their tokens for 2 years, they sit at this pot with their own large spoon.
The problem is that the food in the pot does not increase—on the contrary, the system reduces it every day. Therefore, the more people who come with their “spoon” (voting power), the less soup each person gets. For veteran investors, this means someone else is taking a portion of their share, while the new investor enters a game where their very arrival devalues the percentage they joined for. This is a mathematical dead end where all participants “eat” each other’s profits.
The reason for this is the “Fixed Cake” principle: the protocol releases a specific amount of ICP tokens daily and does not care how many people are waiting for this reward. Your “voting power” is your slice of this cake. When a new large player enters, they increase the total voting power of the network (the denominator in the formula), which automatically reduces the final result for everyone.
Conclusion:
The entry of a new investor and the locking of their tokens is an act of mutual harm: they ruin themselves because they enter a guaranteed declining yield where their capital is instantly “diluted,” and they ruin veteran investors by taking away their fixed share and dragging the APY even faster toward the abyss.
That is why we, the veteran investors, should work to ensure that new investors do not enter the neuron. Since we eat from one pot, with the addition of new members, neither the new ones will be satisfied nor will there be enough food for the “hungry” veterans. Accordingly, write your posts with this logic: we help ICP in everything—we support the development and popularity of projects—but we do not help in attracting new investors to the neuron!
You have fundamentally misunderstood how ICP staking works. It is not the case that there is a limited pool of possible maturity that stakers are competing for.
If I misunderstood the rule of reward distribution, that would also be a pleasant surprise for me. Instead of that comment, it would have been better if you had written the reward distribution rule in brief, with its variables.
This issue is not resolved by restricting critical comments and limiting democracy.
To deepen trust, more democracy and a more open and transparent economic model are required, rather than hiding the problems.
The main selling point was that ICP would become DEFLATIONARY over time.
That was the tokenomics chart and design “ENGINE” that DFINITY sold to investors.
Had demand and usage ramped up per the design, then the burn would accelerate forcing the price of ICP to rise, thus rewarding neuron holders greatly.
However the opposite happened.
There would have been no need for M70 otherwise. Whatsoever. There would have been plenty of ICP to go around.
But yeah, you’re right. Now not only are we in the muck but we are going to further dilute the diluted to the point where they will want to exit early.
Fun fun fun… we’ll see what happens! Survival of the most patient I guess (hopefully)?
Would you please explain the context of this statement? I’m not clear why you are characterizing it this way.
There is indeed a fixed amount of voting rewards each day and it is definitely divided proportionally among all possible voting power. Those who don’t vote don’t get their share on any given day, but those who do vote do get their own share. Regardless, if more people stake, the fixed amount of voting rewards are divided further among those who are staked.
I’m not agreeing with the base claim of the OP in the sense that I believe we should want more people staking, but it is indeed true that when more people stake we all get less rewards.
So I’d like to better understand the context of your first reply if you don’t mind explaining.
