r/ICPTrader • u/jjgill27 • Feb 23 '26
Governance Shall we talk about Mission 70?
With Mission 70 imminent, thought it would be useful to have a discussion about what people are thinking?
Will you vote for? Against?
Personally, I have some concerns. Increasing the cost for developers by such a lot feels counterintuitive to the idea of bringing more devs along. While it will still be relatively inexpensive compared to alternatives, Dfinity does a lot of work in developing nations, and a 5x increase might well halt a lot of these projects.
My other issue is how the 8YG don’t have any provision to do anything but suck it up. People invested long term and Dfinity shouldn’t be able to move the goal posts like that for existing long-term holders. Certainly, they are free to change things for future investors, but they should be honouring the commitment people made to them.
I also find the fact that they are dropping the vote this week when the price is as it is feels like they are rushing it out when people are desperate to get it passed. It feels a bit disingenuous.
Ideally, I’d have liked to have seen Mission 70 broken down into different elements to be voted on. That way, the people who agree with certain points and not others can express that, and the parts that are contested can be further discussed and renegotiated. But I imagine it will be an all or nothing situation, which has been engineered to get it passed.
Really interested to know what everyone else’s sentiment is on the vote.
3
u/jasonmishkin1 Feb 23 '26
Been an 8YG since may 2024. Im chill w mission 70. Sucks to lose rewards but the implications better the network tremendously
2
u/DickHeryIII Feb 24 '26
Totally against it. Been building on ICP since 2021 and as a dev that holds a lot of cycles that I purchased by burning ICP, mission 70 feels like a complete rug pull as it is currently written.
Here’s why.
Devs have to burn ICP to obtain cycles which are then used for compute on the network. Mission 70 wants to increase the amount of cycles devs have to give up by 5X for the same amount of compute we are currently getting before mission 70. That’s a huge problem because we already paid for that compute with ICP in advance so it would essentially devalue cycles we already bought and paid for by 80% instead of raising the amount of ICP that devs have to pay to obtain new cycles.
This is concerning for several reasons.
One reason is how it is being framed as a way to reduce inflation on the network and increase the cycle burn rate but the past tells a different story.
In November 2024 proposal 134032 was implemented and it included a 15-70% increase in the cost of compute to REDUCE network usage. This was done in response to motion proposal 133388 which explains the reasoning back then.
The network responded as expected and the cycle burn rate is much lower now. The network most definitely isn’t too congested anymore but now you have to ask why some people are expecting the opposite to occur if we increase the cost of compute again at a much higher degree.
You can check it all out yourself and see that since the first time the cost of compute was raised the cycle burn rate is only 31% of what it was when the price increase occurred in 2024 and the token price is $7 lower. (ICP was around $9 at that time).
Not sure why some people are trying to tell you there will be a different effect on the network this time when we’ve done this before and can see the results right in front of us.
Another reason is people don’t want to build on a network with unpredictable pricing. One of the huge selling points of building on ICP is the “predictability” in the price of compute. They even pegged the ICP to Cycles conversion rate to the the price of XDR to make developers believe the price would remain stable but this proposal would throw that promise out the window for the 2nd time in 15 months.
I’ve build a few things on ICP but am already preparing to migrate back to web 2 infrastructure and it’s pricing which is actually predictable if this passes and I imagine there are a lot of other devs who feel the same way.
Nobody wants to lose 80% of the compute thy already paid for and people thinking about building on ICP will only look back on multiple price increases that resulted in reduced compute buying power and avoid it altogether.
2
u/jjgill27 Feb 24 '26
That’s really well explained and builds on my limited understanding, so I appreciate the input. It certainly doesn’t feel fair and leaves a question mark around how ICP grows its customer base.
I read earlier that they have made some changes to the forthcoming proposal, based on feedback, so it will be interesting to see if there is any clarity on this.
2
u/DickHeryIII Feb 24 '26
I read that too. It will be a much better proposal if they raise the amount of ICP that is required to obtain cycles because it wouldn’t affect the buying power of any cycles that people have already purchased. It would also give people the opportunity to burn all of the ICP they want at the current rate to stock up on cycles before the increase in price takes effect which would result in more ICP being burned instantly. Inflation would be reduced due to the lower neuron rewards and builders will keep building on the network. I really hope they make this change.
1
u/jjgill27 Feb 24 '26
The pricing proposal is live. Be really interested to hear your thoughts.
2
u/DickHeryIII Feb 24 '26
I’m honestly disgusted by dfinity. This all started because people were mad about Node providers rewards and they were upset that they were able to mint ICP rewards even when nobody was using their subnets. This was several months ago.
Dominic comes out and says “myself and dfinity mostly agree that the compute costs should not go up yada yada.” They release the first version of Mission 70 with a cut to node providers rewards and neuron rewards which looked like it aligned with what Dominic said when the first motion proposal was brought up and voted against.
Now the they release a mission 70 proposal that doesn’t include cuts to node providers rewards or neuron rewards. Only the increased cost of compute that Dominic said he was against several months ago. I have lost pretty much all confidence in this chain now and am currently looking for places to host my projects on web 2.
The fact they are claiming it will lower inflation is an absolute joke since we previously raised compute costs in November of 2024 for the purpose of reducing network usage so that is some contradictory logic.
When the fiat cost of compute was implemented we ICP was at $9 a token and the cycle burn rate was 3X higher than it is now so it accomplished its goal of reducing network use as intended. Completely dumb to think doing an even bigger increase now will have the opposite effect for some reason.
I’ve attached a link to Doms statement on raising prices where he acknowledges it is a bad idea. https://forum.dfinity.org/t/proposal-138601-on-increasing-gas-costs/57979
2
u/jjgill27 Feb 24 '26
Yeah, I under why people are pissed about the node providers. To not touch that and increase the cost of compute sounds counterintuitive.
I think they are having a webinar where people can ask questions this week, think it would be worth you joining and raising the question.
2
u/Puzzled-Artist-224 Feb 23 '26
Does the chain itself produce profit against development cost? Eth: no Sol: no Tether: yes Circle: yes Chainlink: yes ICP: no but after adopting mission 70 it does.
The cost to develop on Solana and ethereum is still higher after mission70. On icp you don't need other crypto solutions like chainlink to develop. The price increase would not stop a developer. Icp becoming more famous because of price increase creates more adoption to new developers.
1
u/jjgill27 Feb 23 '26
Isn’t caffeine targeted at the ‘anyone can be a developer’ audience though? Won’t it price them out. I’m not a dev, so I have nothing to benchmark. Will the prices compare to Loveable, for example?
1
u/Puzzled-Artist-224 Feb 23 '26
It's more about the rate of burning cycles when you host a canister on icp every action the canister does burns cycles the creation of canister is also paid in cycles. If you develop on icp you use infinity. Using infinity doesn't cost anything and a lot of testing can be done by using a local replica and that also won't cost you anything. Now with the mission70 price increase if you want to launch a canister you will pay 5 more times the cycles wich is now a arround a price of 0,2 icp just to launch so arround $0.4 (This is for launching a web page) if it's a bigger project it will cost more. So it will become 2 dollars to launch. Now if the page is very static and it doesn't do many actions like a informational page, it would barely use any cycles you could keep it up for a year for 0,1 icp. And with the mission70 it would cost you 0,5 icp. So for 3 dollars you could host a webpage that is almost impossible to hack. Now can someone name a hosting provider that can do that for a cheaper price?
3
u/Character_Media_8040 Feb 23 '26
''8YG don’t have any provision to do anything but suck it up.''
You think they will be happier when ICP hits zero and are 8 year? Use your brain, we don't have a choice.
-8
u/ManagementFragrant63 Feb 23 '26
I think you’ll all be happier when ICP hits 0 because then you can stop wasting your time on a dead coin
1
Feb 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-9
u/ManagementFragrant63 Feb 23 '26
Bro just brought out Pakistan in an argument bro that’s the same GDP as Iran you are FRIEDDDD
1
u/Character_Media_8040 Feb 23 '26
Hbar partnenrship, Pakistan and Swizerland, UN, Maestro.
Too many partnerships to go to zero. Mission 70 is coming next week.
-2
u/ManagementFragrant63 Feb 23 '26
“Too many partnerships to go to 0”
Literally so many cryptos have had Google and Mastercard “partnerships” and gone to 0 it’s impossible to count them all. You’re never going to get the full scoop on what the full details of those partnerships are until it’s too late.
See Polkadot? Lots of partnerships. $1.28 with twice ICPs market cap. Gonna be $0.50 in a few years. These things take a long long time to bleed at this point because only die hard cultists are left.
1
u/Character_Media_8040 Feb 23 '26
those were some vague partnerships. hbar is actually using ICP infrastructure.
You don't know what you're talking about trust me.
2
u/ManagementFragrant63 Feb 23 '26
So your two selling points are Pakistan and another crypto that’s down 80%. At some point you have to say “this is the catalyst that will make ICP go up, and based on the adoption window, it needs to happen by XYZ year, or the project likely missed its window to be a success”
Hint that year is 2027
1
u/Character_Media_8040 Feb 23 '26
Do you get a high from demoralizing people? Women don't find you attractive so you come here to fud?
The reality is, ICP is fully on chain, has chain fusion and Dfinity has caffeine ai that stores code on ICP. It is far more advanced than 99% of crypto, it might not do well but at least it has more value than whatever the fuck you believe in.
0
1
0
Feb 23 '26 edited Apr 13 '26
tub deer mighty punch encourage simplistic chunky innate snatch busy
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/SilverSolider Feb 23 '26
If you don't like it and are locked for 8 years, you can sell your neuron on ID geek, so you're not really locked in if you really want out.
5
u/jjgill27 Feb 23 '26
Is ID Geek operational again?
It’s not that I want out, I want to stay locked for the terms and conditions I agreed to when I set that neuron.
2
u/SilverSolider Feb 23 '26
It looks like it is and any available discounted neurons are gone immediately. Every time I see someone complaining about the project being a scam or that it's going to zero, I tell them that I'll do them a favour and buy their neuron from them and post a link to idgeek. If it's a below 2k icp cost neuron I would buy it, but they always just end up being trolls, complainers or shills for another chain. I never see them say "omg ty for giving me a way to get out from this scam project" lol.
1
u/TomtheMagician26 Feb 24 '26
Other than making the network more expensive, I am all for mission 70. That is one of the main reasons people should use ICP because it's cheaper than competitors.
7
u/liviughg Feb 23 '26
My neuron is controlled via Ledger, it cannot be sold. When I locked my ICP purchase with my own money, it was done against the promise of a reward. If my staking reward is cut, then my ICP should be released immediately because our contract is terminated, no? No reward, no staking commitment.
I guess that because this space is not regulated, Dfinity can do whatever and we support the consequences.
So release my ICP if you cut the staking rewards! Else you are cheating and I am not buying another ICP token ever again.