Minimum value of irep is 10,000 as described on pg. 20 https://m.icon.foundation/download/IISS_Paper_v2.0_EN.pdf
Appreciate you catching that Tomas!
I hope the main PREPS know we support them and their contributions and we love being a Sub-Prep.
We know we are extreme on lowering PREP rewards but also want to fund PREPS like your team that builds sustainable value to Icon. We are excited to see the Icon Foundation’s proposal this week!
100 members in zoom are possible
I am going to try and help grow the London presence of ICON this year so I just wanted to add to the comments that these are bad times for Europeans. While I appreciate the reason for the time of the day to cross time-zones, it would be much preferred on a Monday or Tuesday going forward than it would be on a Friday or Saturday which are likely to be times we are away from office/home. This meeting falls in the evening on a Friday on Valentine’s Day for example.
Great! Not sure that we will be able to make it, will do our best!
Below is a list of topics for the first weekly P-rep meeting, gathered from the community. This is not a complete list, but the first 4-5 seem like top priority topics to me. Due to time restrictions, we will limit the first meeting to 4-5 topics and table the others for the next meeting. Over time, the topic list will dwindle and we can spend more of the hour discussing individual topics in-depth.
Welcome any additions to this list, and we may want to collectively decide which 4-5 will be included in the first meeting.
- Top request from the community is a list of contributions of the P-Rep teams visible on the voting screen. It doesn’t have to be perfect. It just needs to be there.
To simplify things I would suggest that all teams submit a quick-list of their contributions for inclusion in a master list. Ideally 5 to 10 words maximum that can be placed in a clean, bulleted list. URL’s can be provided to link to specific contributions from the list.
A “Contributions” text link can appear beneath each team name on the voting page, and a single obvious large text link can appear above list of teams. The goal is to ensure voters notice and view it. “Contributions” text links can link to the master list with anchors taking the user to the proper team within the list. Teams that do not submit anything should be displayed on the master list with nothing next to their names.
- Inactive nodes collecting rewards.
Request to call a vote to disable rewards for nodes that have spun up and remained offline for “X” days, as they are not contributing but are increasing inflation. In addition to this, request to call a vote for protocol change that doesn’t generate rewards in the first place, simply by registering the node. Rewards should not begin until node has been online for X days and must remain online. (Or some other rule set).
- Dynamic node registration fee
Suggestion to modify the node registration fee from a flat 2,000 ICX to something that changes in relation to the ICX value, to retain a flat fiat cost. At 10 cents registration was $200 USD. At $0.60 registration cost $1,200. At $10 registering a node will cost $20,000.
- ICONex Mobile Wallet Fee Issue
Dusty runs a Dapp and has reported that the mobile wallet doesn’t allow for custom fees. As such, all the transactions using their Dapp are getting rejected by the system when executed from mobile wallet. Their Dapp is set to non-standard fees ranging 0.0034 - 0.005. They go through fine on Chrome wallet, but mobile is set to 0.002 so they fail. He feels this was worth mentioning, as it may be a bug/limitation of the mobile wallet he would like to see fixed/enhanced.
- Ledger Support for Staking from Mobile App
Users report that they currently can’t stake from mobile app if they use Ledger. Only by the Chrome wallet. Someone suggested this may be an opportunity for a P-rep team with devs to code it and submit it for inclusion. Discussion: Do P-rep devs have the ability to submit code enhancements and bug fixes for review and eventual inclusion to the ICON code base - whether it be for mobile wallets, desktop or even protocol?
- Ongoing issues with Ledger
In general, for the last 6 months, almost daily, we have complaints about problems with Ledger integration. Regardless of whether there is a workaround available, most users are not in Telegram and will simply get stuck with no guidance how to proceed. Therefore, users should be able to proceed upon first try, with no such problems, and without having to jump through any hoops. One example: user reported Windows security alert: “Make sure it is you. Tap your security code on the readr or insert it into the USB port”. Users state ledger is already connected and ICX app is started. Cant connect. CCC mentioned this is a common issue and users must re-sync time/date and restart ICONex. Situations like this warrant code changes that address the problem so users don’t encounter them in the first place.
- Trezor wallet support completion
Trezor support was started via their GitHub, approved, and then has been left incomplete for several months as nobody took the reins to integrate. What is needed to complete this task?
- icon.foundation telegram channel list additions/updates
Suggestion to add the new ICON China telegram channel to the master list of Telegram channels on the icon.foundation website. (and any others we are aware of that need to be added - this page has been outdated for a long time).
- User request for an auto-restake function.
Discuss whether this encourages too much lack of attention from voters, as we want to encourage participation.
Great list of topics! Agree with everything on here, good job!
What time is the p-rep meeting on Sunday?
I think it’s still Friday, February 14, 2019 / 3-5PM PST. Has the meeting time changed?
There’s two meetings. One Friday (3-5 pm pst) and one on Sunday (that catalyst is leading). Not sure on time for Sunday.
We are planning for Sunday 8AM JST/Saturday 6PM EST for the first meeting. I’m putting together some information on it and will release the details shortly.
Extremely excited about these meetings moving forward. Thank you to everyone who is putting the time and effort into managing them.
@Icon4Education don’t be so pessimistic about the future brother. We’re all wanting the best for the ecosystem here. I’d especially advise you to do some research into inflation numbers for other chains, you might be surprised to learn that ICON’s is actually very low for year one by comparison to the competition. Real world adoption is going to require investment I’m quite happy myself with the idea that top P-Reps might earn less. I’m not happy thinking that those outside the top 10 could have their rewards significantly lowered just to meet an arbitrary inflation goal, especially one that’s not backed with research and only fuelled by opinion. No offence intended there, I just think that someone needs to voice a counter argument. Come post in the IISS upgrades thread with us here on the forums, loving your passion for the project too:+1:
We have researched every project in the top 200 in full detail. Many projects like Nano, Stellar, and Iota offer no inflation and are doing quite well. We know there are projects that inflate their currency more than Icon.
If we keep printing $ICX we feel distributing the inflation to the community like Stellar is doing with their reserves is a good idea to spread adoption. We are not a big fan of PREPS making hundred of thousands to millions without having their contributions advised and assessed by the Icon Foundation. We would support the PREP earnings if they were assessed by the Icon Foundation and each PREP had to work for them like the grant program.
Our team is not being pessimistic, but optimistic about the price of $ICX rising without printing unnecessary ICX. If PREPS followed ICX station in lowering IREP it would have been a great start.
We will have to agree on disagreeing here and think the Icon Foundation and ICX Station agree with our viewpoint, or they fall somewhere in the middle on both of our viewpoints:)
Thanks for reaching out and much respect of your teams contributions:)
This is a fair enough remark
There were some talks about live streaming the Friday event. Will this be possible and where will someone be able to watch this? Also will there be a VoD for it?
What attracted you to ICON? It’s impressive that you chose this project out of 200. I’m a big fan.
Also, why mention those 3 as the comparison? The three you mentioned are very different than ICON and do not even offer smart contracts. 2 of DAG structure and also they are more centralized. I like those projects but it’s comparing apples to oranges. Also, if you hold and support the project long-term, icx holders actually gain value compared to these three the gain from staking rewards is much higher inflation. Thus there is actually economic incentive to holding icon compared to these.
Thanks for reaching out!
We chose Icon because we agree with the goals and vision and feel Icon will make the world more productive!
The projects we listed are different but still have individuals and teams contributing without receiving awards. We think a little inflation (around 5%) is healthy and figuring out a way to mostly reward contributions is our vision for sustainability. Top PREPS becoming instant millionaires was not Icon’s original vision.
We wish top preps offered grants to lower-ranked PREPS with ideas both teams agree on.
- What about you Russ… Do you think PREPS earning over a million dollars a year in rewards without having their contributions approved by the foundation is what is best for Icon’s sustained growth? We are fine with PREPS earning money, but only if they offer Icon more than Icon is rewarding them.
- ICX Station lowered their IREP to 32,000. Did you ever ask them why they lowered their IREP? The popular response from main-preps for not lowering IREP, “It will hurt other sub preps” is not valid by facts and is just an opinion. We feel Ibriz, Eublockmove, Reliant Node should be in the top 10 and may be three teams where we would agree that lowering IREP would hurt them but that is why we want to support contributions.
If Icon PREP teams were listed by contributions the top 10 would be different (From our research, our opinion). We also researched and searched out Icon out of 200 projects so we are not off by much
- Icon Foundation
- ICX Station
- Reliant Node
Thanks again Russ for reaching out and even though we disagree on the rewards system we both want what is best for Icon.
Due to Coronavirus affecting all flights downstream apparently, my trip this weekend to Zihuatanejo has been rebooked by American Airlines to have me on planes all day tomorrow. So I won’t be able to attend the Foundation meeting on Friday.
Frustrated, but out of my control. I expect, Southern-Mexico-internet-willing, to be able to attend the meeting on Sunday still.
No problem, thank you for your comments and sharing your opinions. I also appreciate you recognizing our team’s work in your listing of top 10 in contributions, and including us. We have worked hard for the ICON project since the initial TestNet when less than 10 teams were a part of it and have continued to work and do what we feel best for the ecosystem. We certainly appreciate the support the community has shown us and appreciate you recognizing our efforts.
ICON is a great project with a bright future and glad we both agree on that! The goals and vision are amazing! Please recall that the goal of ICON is to be decentralized and in doing so, the Foundation has been careful not to interfere or provide advice or leadership to this point so as to not sway others decisions or come across as centralized. While it remains to be seen how or if decentralized systems will work, it would be a bit contrary to the ethos of this if ICON told everyone what to do and had to approve all the work done. This meeting is actually the first time the Foundation is going to explicitly say what they hope to achieve / goals to the P-Reps, and I think it’s good for them to share this opinion as they created the system, know it best, and have inherent privileged information about it and the current and potential future partners. Perhaps sharing what they hope to achieve can help guide some P-Reps to work together on different initiatives. Some have already begun to do so. In the end, since it is decentralized, P-Reps will need to make the determination of what they think is best to accomplish and the voters will respond if they like these or not through their casting of votes (self voted nodes are obviously not in this category as I’m only discussing community / external votes).
Regarding I-REP, the foundation actually set I-Rep initially at 50,000 with an estimated ICX price of 0.40. This was listed in the introduction and instructions for becoming a P-Rep. We are at 0.40 and I-Rep is lower than 50,000 - so it is appropriate for what was signed up for. We have discussed potentially lowering I-Rep, but there is much to consider. If the original plan was to have 50,000 IREP for a price of 0.40, then is there a good reason to lower it? The system was designed with many months of thought and planning. Additionally, it has been struggle to get more P-Reps to join. We only JUST now reached the goal of 100 P-Reps (a number that was hoped to be achieved prior to decentralization). This is fantastic that we achieved this number now, but I don’t think lowering incentives makes a lot of sense when the supply is low and demand is not what was hoped for (in terms of P-Reps). If P-Reps were making too much and are too highly incentivized, then I would have expected this number to be reached long ago, even before elections. The top 10 is able to be achieved through work - bear in mind many teams in the top 10 either self-voted themselves there or spent many months of work prior to elections. Mineable joined the top 10 in a few months, so it can be done through hard work.
None of the P-Reps are becoming instant millionaires. There are actually only the top 3 P-Reps who are slated to earn over $1M annually, at the time of this writing.
Thanks for responding Russ:)