P-Rep Community Meeting Topics - May 16, 2020

The next P-Rep community meeting will be on May 16 at 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (10:00 PM UTC). Please submit topics for discussion in this thread.

Corey from Ubik Capital will be hosting this meeting!

If you’d like to participate in the upcoming meeting and are not already in the dedicated telegram channel, please send Corey a DM on telegram (@Josephcorey) and he will get you in. Thank you!

1 Like

For a list of previous meeting discussions you can check this thread:

This is the last meeting notes so we can continue to keep track on past topics


Thank you for posting these!

1 Like

Thank you for managing the meetings UBIK Capital. One topic that I would like to see discussed is putting together a formal proposal to present to ICON about IISS 3.0 implementation.

Specifically, I think ICON needs to provide a detailed roadmap for when we can expect to see things like the bond requirement implemented. IMO, saying Sept/Oct is unacceptable because a difference of 15-30 days is a lot of time when doing financial planning.

A detailed roadmap will allow all teams to plan for the bond requirement with more clarity, and it will also put less pressure to hoard rewards now instead of spending them on things that can grow the ecosystem.

I’m not sure what the current internal plans are for releasing a proper roadmap. If it doesn’t exist, it should, and us P-Reps should put together a set of guidelines that ICON should abide to for IISS 3.0 implementation.

The only guideline that my team is interested in is the exact date of implementation. If an exact date is not known, I think the “countdown clock” should start after an exact date is announced and last for 6 months.


Hi guys,

A topic I’d like to discuss is the opportunity to grow ICON Daily.

Our team has been running this media with solid consistency over the past months, and we believe there is an opportunity to relay information about the ICON ecosystem in local languages.

We would like to evaluate if there could be an interest from other P-Reps to share translated content in local languages with the same consistency. We will make an independent post on the forum about that as well, but happy to gather warm feedbacks during the call.


@Edouard_POS_Bakerz I’m interested in this idea, looking forward to discuss it in more details in the meeting and expand it on your forum post

@bwhli I agree with this, we could discuss and create a formal proposal in terms of implementation and it will also serve to help teams understand more and prepare themselves economically for the bond and others changes of IISS 3.0

1 Like

Another topic that I believe needs addressed is calling for a vote to update virtual step rewards. I believe we are still limited to 1 month deposit period. But we can vote to change to up to 24 months for increased rewards. Also it looks like the max icx we can deposit is 100k. That may not be enough to cover transactions. We may need to vote to raise that limit as well.


Thank you for the topic suggestions so far @bwhli, @Edouard_POS_Bakerz, @BrandonUnrein! Great suggestions!

Shaping up to be a great meeting!


agree with @bwhli , bond have to be discuss


I feel the necessity to discuss the implementation of IISS 3.0. These are thoughts and call to action. There are few things we have to prepare on besides a bond requirement:

  • run the tests of the new contribution reward system where all Preps are obliged to evaluate, discuss and vote
  • agree on a joint community and foundation list of possible contributions necessary for Icon, as Ubik Capital proposed earlier
  • contributions on the eep development side can be funded only for 3 month. It is unquestionably rational if we talk about meetups, marketing, etc. What if the team is writing smart contract library or an SDK? Should they propose it as a whole and divide it in 3-months parts? I think our attitude towards more complicated than 3 months initiatives should be clear towards grant-seekers.

In overall, our team, Paradigm Citadel, is exited about the protocol and economy updates. Let’s make sure this complex system will come to reality.


I would like to propose a discussion topic in regards to ICONex and the official Tracker.

We all already know that Velic would be in charge of continuing the development and updates to ICONex and the ICON Tracker, and that all changes will be supervised by the ICON Foundation.

Since ICONex is by far the most used wallet in our Ecosystem, and for the past weeks (maybe more than a month) we have been discussing about ways to improve the UI to achieve a better vote distribution, it would be important if we can create a official proposal to present to the foundation in the next Governance Meeting

I have commented several times that the channels are amazing for real time discussion but terrible to track the improvement that can be generated from those discussions, here is a paste or highlight of the most relevant comments about this topic that were posted in the channels:

Benny Options, [09.05.20 23:43]
Something that is not working as expected is that teams are not competing to have lower i_rep. The initial expectation was that this would be a point of contention for voters, trying to select teams that push lower reward rates

iCONsolidation P-Rep (We dont DM users), [09.05.20 23:44]
A small portion of voters are involved in governance, i say 20% at most. Rest are just a passive investors following POS practices

Benny Options, [09.05.20 23:45]
We had thought it would be similar to the “which node offers me the most rewards?” question that is often asked in other networks

Brandon Unrein - InterblockTech P-Rep, [09.05.20 23:46]
[In reply to Benny Options]
Agree vote stagnation contributes to the problem. But curious if there is a solution to the problem of higher reps lowering rewards reducing lower reps rewards. I get the thought behind it, but trying to come up with a solution to the downside problem.

Benny Options, [09.05.20 23:47]
[In reply to Brandon Unrein - InterblockTech P-Rep]
I’ve been thinking about i_rep in general recently. It’s certainly not a perfect design

Brandon Unrein - InterblockTech P-Rep, [09.05.20 23:48]
It makes sense. But maybe should be discussed further to come up with better solutions.

iCONsolidation P-Rep (We dont DM users), [09.05.20 23:49]
[In reply to Benny Options]
Well it would be fine if other parts of the system are wirking in particular the voters activity.

iCONsolidation P-Rep (We dont DM users), [09.05.20 23:49]
As you said if votes are following the i-rep changes you would see much more activity from the p-rep side. Atm it does not matter at all

Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47), [09.05.20 23:51]
I think this circles us back again to the idea of vote rewards decay.

Rewards of a wallet decay over time if a voter don’t revote, let’s say once every 3 months.

It will improve vote distribution and also reduce inflation if the voters that don’t recast votes they lose part of their rewards

Benny Options, [09.05.20 23:55]
[In reply to Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47)]
I’m still not convinced this will do that much, people already come back to check their I-score,
Claim, and restake.

If somebody comes back to restake because of vote decay, why do you expect them to do any more research than they did the first time? My expectation is that they come back, click “reset vote decay”, and vote for the same team they were before

Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47), [10.05.20 00:02]
[In reply to Benny Options]
I guess the devil is in the details.

Re staking is not recasting your votes, is adding more votes, depending on how this gets implemented, there will be different results.

For example “zeroing” your votes, this creates a tx on the chain and then voting again might be enough of a hurdle to make people reconsider who they are voting for if we increase or create campaigns to create awareness in the voters.

Benny Options, [10.05.20 00:05]
[In reply to Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47)]
For this to be a viable solution, it needs to be paired with a significantly better UX that makes it easy to digest the most actively contributing teams (not based solely on social media presence). Vote decay on its own I don’t expect to have a meaningful impact

Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47), [10.05.20 00:07]
[In reply to Benny Options]
Completely agree, it would need an improvement on the UX/UI of ICONex.

Maybe randomly sorting the P-Rep list could do the trick too

Brandon Unrein - InterblockTech P-Rep, [10.05.20 00:08]
[In reply to Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47)]
Agree 100% maybe velic can help with foundations approval.

Benny Options, [10.05.20 00:09]
[In reply to Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47)]
I’ve seen this suggested a few times as well. I don’t necessarily agree with distributing network resources completely arbitrarily like that. This would also result in teams that don’t contribute in any way at all getting more votes. Need to consider all consequences :thinking: but I appreciate the ideas - keep them coming

Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47), [10.05.20 00:12]
[In reply to Benny Options]
Well is not random allocation of votes, a more drastic way would be creating an option let’s called ‘random pool’ were if people vote into that pool it would get randomly allocate it to a team, that’s not my idea at all.

I’m just thinking of something more simple sort the P-Rep list randomly and put a search bar on top, when people type a name they will find the P-Rep they want to vote for and if people just simply vote for the first name they see, might as well make it random

Brandon Unrein - InterblockTech P-Rep, [10.05.20 00:12]
I love the discussion, but still trying to come up with a solution for higher ranked reps lowering I rep not hurting lower reps. If higher reps lower for good reasons, can we find a way to not hurt lower reps.

Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47), [10.05.20 00:13]
[In reply to Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47)]
A perfect solution would be imposible to find but we could take small step into better solutions and improvements

Markus | P-Rep: ICON Hyperconnect, [10.05.20 00:14]
[In reply to Benny Options]
I actually agree with this. Randomizing will spread votes for the sake of it, what we need is a better way for people to see real contributions.

iCONsolidation P-Rep (We dont DM users), [10.05.20 00:14]
I think we definitely need to take advantage of the dual stake/vote system ICON has. It is a way to make governance changes without putting the network in danger by reducing the stake.

In the current system both stakes and votes are a passive functions. We need to take advantage of the dual system and look into converting the votes into a more dynamic function.

Benny Options, [10.05.20 00:16]
[In reply to Markus | P-Rep: ICON Hyperconnect]
I see both sides haha, me personally I actually lean more towards evenly distributing the arbitrary votes. I would like something like a “vote for all” button in the UI maybe. I agree it has some negative consequences, but I think it could let the voters that actually care have more of a voice since random votes to the top teams won’t drown them out

Markus | P-Rep: ICON Hyperconnect, [10.05.20 00:16]
It’s entirely possible that a sub p-rep is contributing more than a main p-rep which makes the top ten list a voter trap for apathetic voters but it’s still more more merit based than randomized p-rep lists. But I see the issue with the top 10 list, we need a better way to categorize contributions regardless of voter rank.

Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47), [10.05.20 00:16]
[In reply to Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47)]
adding on this small improvements, we could first introduce the random sorting of the list with a search bar on top.

Right now is a simple change in JS code and since we don’t have vote decay this will only affect new votes.

We could track to see how the voting behavior change and see if adding vote decay could help

Benny Options, [10.05.20 00:18]
[In reply to Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47)]
Yeah could be worth testing out at least

Markus | P-Rep: ICON Hyperconnect, [10.05.20 00:19]
So yes I see the issue regarding why people want randomized lists, and I do want to fix it, but I don’t believe randomizing will help that effectively.

We have dead nodes too, we don’t want votes going there.

Contribution based metrics, I know some P-Reps are working on it, but I think it can be done better.

Brandon Unrein - InterblockTech P-Rep, [10.05.20 00:22]
Randomised is better. I mentioned in my 1st rep meating. Randomised and by category is best. We just need the foundation to approve for velic to fix.

Markus | P-Rep: ICON Hyperconnect, [10.05.20 00:23]
Right now when someone asks me where they can go to view and assess p-rep activity I don’t have a strong answer for them.

I know iconpreps.com is working on it but I’d like to see more data based approaches

Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47), [10.05.20 00:24]
[In reply to Markus | P-Rep: ICON Hyperconnect]
I agree with you Markus, contribution based on merits is the right solution but at least in my opinion is something that can be next to imposible to achieve, voters either vote for the teams that have most visibility on social media or vote for teams inside the top.

Since having millions of voters vote based on merits is imposible the only 2 solutions I see are:

  • introduce random. With randomizing lists of prep
  • introduce centralization. A voting pool that the top 22 select who should recieve the votes base on an onchain voting like aproving a proposal

Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47), [10.05.20 00:26]
[In reply to Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47)]
@Benny_Options what do you think of option 2 here :point_up_2:

Benny Options, [10.05.20 00:26]
[In reply to Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47)]
I think I like the direction

Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47), [10.05.20 00:29]
[In reply to Benny Options]
I have always think that the ones that knows best what teams are active and what teams aren’t are ourselves as P-Reps, we are ICONists as well.

Having a voting pool where the voters simply say, “look I don’t know who to vote for but I believe you guys do know who should receive this votes”

Then this pool gets distributed based on the decition (votes) of the top 22 but there is a catch, can only be distributed outside the top 22 and into several teams for example

Geo dude | ICONbet Community P-Rep, [10.05.20 00:30]
[In reply to Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47)]
What happens if a prep gets into the top 22 after these votes?

Fidel ~ Espanicon.team | ICON P-Rep (#47), [10.05.20 00:30]
[In reply to Geo dude | ICONbet Community P-Rep]
Yes but in this case it would be decided between the top 22 and we could add some restrictions to it.

Only for teams below top 22
Maximum of lest say 1M votes

Brandon Unrein - InterblockTech P-Rep, [10.05.20 00:33]
There are really 3 scenarios.

  1. Voters vote for a strong dapp.
  2. Voters vote for strong marketing
  3. Voters vote for governance they agree with.

Just need to sort out the details. I hope voters do.

Peter | PARROT9, [10.05.20 00:34]
I’m actually not a fan of a randomised listing. If the goal is to get voters to vote for P-Reps who are actively contributing, I’m not sure how a random list of P-Reps will solve that.

IMO a better solution is to have a list of the most recent project updates. The P-Reps who are working hard on their projects will have more updates, which means more screen time for voters to consider.

Ricky Dodds, [10.05.20 10:53]
some good ideas thrown around last night. just caught up. 3 things are actively being explored:
-randomizing voting list
-voting decay
-a vote for all feature

Sorry for the long texts, the point is that we have been having this conversation back and forward for a couple of weeks now, It might be very good if we just discuss this properly and come up with a well-defined proposal that we could present to the foundation in order to improve the voting dilemma and the most used wallet overall in our ecosystem.

1 Like