ICON Foundation Bond

Delegate / Validator Candidates
#22

Hi all,

I wanted to weigh in here briefly and say that we support the idea of reducing the Foundations staking rewards. I think it’s a bad image for them to be staking so many and earning the ICX while smaller preps are having a difficult time making enough to cover their node costs and any development. Second, I see BTP was mentioned. We shouldn’t conflate the Foundations rewards in ICX as being used to subsidize BTP usage. If anything all node operators could come to an agreement to increase inflation to offset any usage from BTP. We don’t need the foundation to make their rewards and then just give them out. It is our opinion that the very nature of Icons low price and cheap fees was to drive usage. If BTP is successful then we should see an increase in demand for ICX. We have a long ways to go before we are even remotely close to needing any sort of inflationary measures. There are plenty of ICX out there in the wild for networks to use. So, in closing I think the foundation should not be able to stake and earn so much. I don’t know of any other networks where a foundation does this. Conversely if there ever is a need the Foundation can always increase their rewards can’t they? If I am wrong let me know. Thanks all and Happy New Year.

#23

It’s a terrible idea to use CPS funding to support P-reps in my opinion. The whole ideal of decentralized is/are node operators that are independant and can manage without having to ask or beg for the funds to do so.

Again, the idea of the CPS supporting the network through giving out funds so Preps can exist is not only scary, it’s Orwellian and dystopian scary. That’s full on centralization!

#24

In blockchains, a drive to adoption is through subsidizing and generating more rewards, an example would be Avalanche and their incentives programme and on the other hand, many blame the lack of adoption for L2s down to a lack of tokenised economy.

I’m not sure how increasing inflation offsets losses, this will just devalue $ICX in dollar value.

It is a misconception to think that ‘low fees’ drives adoption, as we see, chains with high fees do have a lot of adoption, this is because there are more incentives and opportunities to make money, which is why an incentive programme is needed. this also relates back to the blockchain trilemma.

Many other chains have a more skewed distribution of tokens. As long as the rewards are going towards growing the network, it shouldn’t be an issue.

@Icon-4-Business the idea of decentralisation isn’t that you ‘don’t have to beg for funds’, the CPS and node operators are interlinked, in that only p-reps can vote on CPS proposals, I’m not sure how that’s centralisation.

The main benefit is that being a node operator is no longer a cash cow business. If you want money to grow the ecosystem, you have to present it and be judged, this is good as a form of accountability.

#25

I don’t think it is my place to provide an opinion on this topic, but I would just like to present a couple points:

  1. ICON Foundation has been sending 100% of node rewards to the CPS since March 2021, which went directly towards funding community projects.

  2. Until ICON 2.2 is released, the 10% of ICON Inflation that’s allocated towards the CPS is currently being burned. This means until ICON 2.2 is released the CPS needs these ICON Foundation rewards or it will run out of funding.

1 Like