Yesterday, “Fee 2.0” was published to the ICON mainnet. Fee 2.0 is a major update to ICON’s transaction fee system that allows DApp operators to pay transaction fees for users. At first glance, this update may seem insignificant, but it’s actually a huge step in the right direction for mass adoption of DApps.
In a previous post, we discussed ICON’s staking reward model on a general level. While that post touched on the “unstaking period” concept, I’ve seen a lot of confusion regarding the unstaking period over the past few weeks. In this post, we’ll take an in-depth look at ICON’s unstaking period to understand what it is, and why it’s needed to maintain a secure and stable network.
If you’re interested in learning more about ICX staking and rewards, be sure to check out the latest episode of RHIZOME Offline.
Earlier today, I came across a series of defamatory statements written by James Edwards, also known as “ZeroNoncense” and “ProofOfResearch”, in the CryptoMedication Telegram channel. The statements revolved around Edwards’ conspiracy theories, and accused several people of being “compromised’ with “Binance and Bitmax/Torque Ventures dominat[ing] the IEO space unethically.” Quite frankly, I’m confused about why Edwards decided to throw my name onto his list of unethical IEO advertisers. I don’t invest in or talk about IEOs. Nevertheless, let’s take some time to go through Edwards’ outlandish claims.
In ICON’s initial network design, public representatives (P-Reps) had the power to influence ICX reward rates. Recently, ICON Foundation decided to change the reward model to reduce the power of P-Reps. In the network’s current state, the ICX reward rate is a function of the percentage of network staked, and there are no other contributing factors. In this post, we’ll discuss how the ICX reward rate is calculated, along with the economic implications of a lowly staked network versus a highly staked one.