[Network Proposal] Lower i_rep to the minimum amount of 10,000

Governance
#1

ICX Station will be proposing to lower i_rep to 10,000 on Wednesday November 25th 2020 at approximately 3pm EST. This is as low as it can go on ICON 1.0.

We feel that it’s important to utilize network resources wisely. With the ICON Grant program providing funding to teams interested in contributing, it would be wise to lower the network inflation as there will still be plenty of rewards available to ensure the network will produce blocks. Ultimately, we believe this is best for all ICX holders and a good decision using the tools that we currently have at our disposal.

9 Likes
#2

Perhaps a good time for another marketing push around the contribution proposal system. I don’t think enough people realise there is this amazing decentralised funding initiative launching for our network.

4 Likes
#3

In the end, again another move hurting us but we are happy and supportive of the changes. The only issue is we were funding our projects internally while not having much budget since all these changes we are relying more on grants. While we are dropping rewards like that maybe some rewards rework also can help after CBP integration and adding subs into the cycle. I was going to suggest some kind of reward hard cap since the aim is not handing out extra rewards outside operation but the vote limit suggestion I made actually have the same effect :slight_smile:

#4

Realistically no teams are funding themselves through rep rewards, perhaps except for Ubik. I am paid about 10% of what I would be paid if I did the same work for a company in our industry.

I think the presale success thus far of Project Nebula is a great sign for everyone. We have a large community that is interested in investing in exciting ideas, we just have to give them more of them.

4 Likes
#5

Your team is one of the best teams out there and I am publicly stating that for very long time. We pay 0 to any team member but that’s not important and we can’t expect to preps to do that.I really don’t want to create argument here. Most of the preps doing great job. My point was there is future plans for adding sub preps in terms as a main validator etc. as a sub prep we hardly cover cost for servers of the bot and we are around the middle of the list. Since these future plans exists it’s going to change a lot of numbers like % goes to CBF prep rewards no block reward… maybe general system overhaul might be the way.

About Nebula ecosystem is building up nft start to become materialize but still very early we have marketplace in development. All of these will help the other companies to take their ideas and build it. When there is 0 nft and support of it on chain. Nobody come and build nft on that chain. Grounding of the ecosystem for these kind of developments mostly done by preps but takes time.

1 Like
#6

This is good, very good:)

Are these contribution proposals votes based on the amount of P-Reps that vote yes or no, or is it weighted by the total votes each main P-Rep has? So P-Reps ranked one and two have more weighted authority to make a change for the network, while P-Rep ranked 22 has very little. Am I understanding this correctly?

#7

We do appreciate all of your efforts, you do go above and beyond!

1 Like
#8

Just to quickly clarify, this is a Network Proposal, not a Contribution Proposal.

But either way, both Network Proposals and Contribution Proposals are based on both ways of voting. In order to pass any type of proposal you need at least 67% approval from:

1.) Each individual P-rep

2.) The stake-weighted votes of all P-Reps

So for this specifically, we need 15 P-Reps to agree, and the stake-weight of the 15 P-Reps must also represent at least 67% of the total stake participating in the vote

1 Like
#9

Okay, thanks for the information.

#10

Is subs involved in to this? It wasn’t earlier and it wasn’t good practice since a lot of vote was not counted in even though it was not that big as a %. I am glad with update subs also get involved but also like to know current situation since a lot of stuff going on.

#11

No for this vote it’s main p-Reps only

#12

We think it makes sense.

#13

Hi,
I believe this amount should be based in USD, as ICX price fluctuates.
There is no reason to give high rewards to p reps that do not bring value to network. Therefore, my proposal is following:

  • fixed amount based in USD for maintaining network
  • variable amount based on performance. This performance should be measured (quantified) based on quality, reach (audience and so on. It should be estimated by community members and Icon team/foundation.

Regards,
Božidar

#14

The problem with this approach is that as ICX price goes down, the network starts printing more ICX, which increases supply, which lowers ICX price even more. You never want to start increasing supply as price goes down.

Though a heavily debated subject in the community, after more thought, competition through reward sharing mechanisms creates an environment where nodes share less rewards when ICX price is low, but can afford to share more rewards when ICX price is high. Therefore, they approach an equilibrium of how much income nodes actually need to operate.

As our network matures, I expect competition to drive down the amount of income earned by a node.

2 Likes
#15

To encourage p-reps to increase the value of icx, I think the way it is now is good.
However, if the value of icx is getting too high, I think it is a good idea to reduce i_rep or burn icx by consensus among p-reps.