ICON AMA Update (July, 2019)

ICONation
ICONation
Jul 31, 2019 · 25 min read

Hello ICONists,

Every month Ricky Dodds, ICON’s Head of Institutional Markets and Contributor Relations, participates in a community AMA session on the Official ICON Subreddit. Below is a transcript from the July, 2019 session. The content is divided into 4 sections (Business, Development, Marketing and Other). If you have any questions, be sure to tune in to the next AMA session.


Business

Q: we’ve recently heard of the initiative (big SK corporations included) building a new blockchain network and it’s end product seems to be the DID and possible uses in insurance/hospitals/universities communication in the future. It sounded pretty similar to what ICON is trying to achieve. The strange thing is there are some entities in this initiative that already signed a MOU with ICON and still decided to go with the new blockchain network instead of choosing the one they are already “working with” and the one that has been developing decentralized ID (DPASS) for more than a year. This worries me. I do realize the DPASS offers the same thing this initiative’s DID offers (and more), we can say it’s a superior product, but that still doesn’t answer the question why would they not choose ICON. And, like i said, it’s not me worrying about some random entities involved, it’s the entities within ICON’s ecosystem.

So, what i’d like to know, how concerned are you about such a huge competition, especially given the fact that they can offer their product to millions of users once the product is ready (Samsung being one of the entities, once they build the product they can integrate it to all the new phones)?

Secondly, the fact that the entities didn’t choose to go with ICON and DPASS here and chose to go through all the trouble and time consumption of building the new product from the scratch is somewhat of a red flag to me! Why do you think they did that? What’s your opinion about the whole situation?

A: Thank you for the questions. ICONLOOP’s DID services include DPASS, a successful launch of the first DID service available in Korea and my-ID, a unique DID service with a higher authentication degree covering financial transactions at large.

To answer your questions specifically, I don’t think ICONLOOP is too worried about “the competition” given the scope and focus are different, particularly around my-ID which is in a sandbox environment. And I don’t have any specific intel on why SKT chose to expand on their ID service with a DID feature vs. use DPASS or any of the other DID solutions. Many companies simply think they can do it better (wrongly or rightly). We’ll have to wait and see how it plays out.

In my view, ICONLOOP has positioned itself with a focus on government and financial services-led blockchain adoption. Generally speaking we are thrilled to see how our tech partner, ICONLOOP is planning to launch their new service and achieve the appropriate recognition from securities firms, banks, and other partners.


Q: It was reported earlier this month that a group of korean industry giants joined forces to develop a “blockchain-based form of mobile identification”. (source: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/biz/2019/07/175_272268.html).

Since ICON or Iconloop were not mentioned at all, I wonder if they are involved in this, and if not, arent you afraid that DPASS will be dead on arrival if you cant even succed in your domestic market?

A: Thanks for the question. NorskKiwi covered most of the points I was going to hit.

Personally, I think ICONLOOP is in a good position vs. “competitors” and I don’t think anyone is afraid…

Quite the opposite in fact. ICONLOOP is extremely excited about the prospects of my-ID and the potential use-cases going forward (as is the foundation).

(NorskKiwi’s Response for Context)

I’ve answered this multiple times on twitter, FB and here in the subreddit. If you are stuck wondering something you can always feel free to tag me in your question wherever you post it. u/NorskKiwi

  • ICON’s public blockchain has DID in DPASS. Live in iOS app store now. Android soon to follow.
  • ICON’s private chain DID MY-ID is in the FSC fintech sandbox!
  • That deal you are referring to is to plan and build something (maybe 1–5 years until completion?).
  • No they are not at all related.

Q: Quick question, Is ICON approaching binance in any way to help them establish in south korea?

Source: https://www.coindesk.com/binance-eyes-launch-of-crypto-exchange-in-south-korea

A: Hello, I haven’t spoken with Binance specifically about this topic. But I do have conversations with their team on a relatively frequent basis and we’ll be as helpful as we can.


Q: How Unique is DPASS in comperance with other blockchain ID solutions. For example ONT ID and CIVIC?

What are your expectations For the usage of Dpass the coming years?

A: For me, I think one of the most interesting features of DPASS is the broof and vault integration. I think there’s some interesting things we can do in the future with regards to storing certificates, diplomas and other information records for authentication services.

On the second point, ICON and ICONLOOP see the future of Self-Sovereign Identity helping millions of people (perhaps even more over time). Near term, ICONLOOP has been working with several tech startups and entities to manage their ID solutions utilizing DPASS. These will likely be onboarded shortly.


Q: DPASS is significant! Well done. South Korea is an obvious first country goal to integrate, as outlined in the icon medium post today. What other countries does icon see as being open in the near term to this type of technology (from a regulatory standpoint)? Will icon split effort to multiple countries in parallel or be mostly focused on SK adoption of DPASS first and then branching out? Thanks for your time.

A: Hello, thanks for the questions. Right now, ICONLOOP is committed to working closely with partners based in South Korea to unlock the advantages of DID in their home market where there is an advantage, and less regulatory uncertainty.

Over time, ICON and ICONLOOP will build out Issuer and Verifier networks globally to facilitate international DID services, working with all parties interested in embracing Self-Sovereign Identity.


Q: When do you plan to establish another ICON stations in Europe?

A: We don’t have any near term plans to launch an ICX Station in Europe. That said, we know we have a strong community in the UK and other parts of Europe (eg Netherlands etc), so it’s definitely possible in the medium or long term if we can find the right partner.

Development

Q: Min has mentioned oracles will play an important role within blockchain adoption. Can the ‘DAVinCI’ AI product from DAYLI evolve into an oracle role for Iconloop/Icon? Or will an oracle solution be a future milestone on the roadmap for Icon devs? Or has it already been decided that an oracle solution will be needed through partnership with a project like Chainlink?

A: The foundation is still examining potential oracle solutions for the project. I’ll flag this as an important topic for council to discuss near term as its been asked several times now. Hopefully I can provide more color shortly.


Q: When I did the ICO I didn’t anticipate two years later cheering that we hope to “maybe” connect to Ethereum … in six months.

We supposedly have upwards of 50–100 developers, dwarfing the size of every other project out there. But after 2 years we’ve barely gotten our network online and are only talking about being yet another Dapp platform.

Other very large projects already went live with their Dapp networks years ago. Many did so very quickly, and they have already saturated the Dapp platform market.

We are coming in years late, with 10x the number of devs and trying to do something very mundane that’s already been done many times over.

Meanwhile, we are neglecting the 1 thing that set ICON apart from everyone else.

ICON was supposed to be an Institutional Interoperability platform. Something huge. Something that warranted 100+ devs. Not another boring Dapp platform begging 20 year olds to code games on top of it.

Where’s the disconnect in my understanding?

A: Thanks for the questions. I think I addressed most of your concerns in the first post. If not, please let me know if you have specific follow-ups. Thanks again.


Q: Will there be an option for Fee 2.0 to work even if the user has 0 icx? My reasoning: reads from icon are free, so could a read of the whitelist happen and then if whitelisted, the score operator will pay the fee? Today the icx account but have sufficient icx to pay the fee, even if they are whitelisted. While Fee 2.0 certainly helps, this still presents a barrier to adoption as an icx user must still have some small change in their wallet. I’m hoping we can see DApps that are so transparent and seamless that the user has no idea they’re even using blockchain technology.

A: Thanks for the questions! As you mentioned our goal is to have blockchain apps that are so transparent and seamless that the user has no idea they’re even using blockchain technology…

  • In order to achieve this goal, we are suggesting apps provide a small amount of ICX to their whitelist so that users don’t have to buy ICX from exchanges/elsewhere.
  • We are trying to create a system that when a user creates an account in the app, said user will receive an ICX address that contains a small amount of ICX (say 0.1ICX). With that, users could start interacting with the app without the onboarding hassles of buying ICX etc.

Q: Icon is notorious for not being able to deliver on time. People will downvote me for this but that is the truth, even though it hurts. First of all the release of the DEX was a mess. It was such a disappointment to the community. The same DEX that is the whole epicenter of interoperability in ICONs model. According to this medium article:

https://medium.com/helloiconworld/2-icon-development-roadmap-update-feb-2019-c06525d81d63

“The ‘DEX (Decentralized Exchange)’ Development Team has optimized ICON DEX structure by analyzing strengths and weaknesses of the four existing DEX services; IDEX, 0x, Kyber Network, and Bancor. The team has also completed developing smart contracts, and started to develop the user interface and front-end.”

(I repeat “started to develop the user interface and front-end”)

you had already started to work on the front end and UI in feb but decided to ditch it a few months later:

https://medium.com/helloiconworld/5-icon-development-roadmap-update-may-2019-b21e84d6d842

Next in an interview JH-Kim stated the following:

https://www.reddit.com/r/helloicon/comments/bgeqwa/latest_interview_from_jh_kim_icon_council_we_are/

So the first half of 2019 has passed. How far have you come to connecting private iconloop chains to the public ICON chain? It seems to be draging behind as well? Will this mean that the timeline for second half of the year is hanging loose too? Please be meticulous in your response. How can people take any announcements seriously in the future, specially when they are announced two-three months prior to the goals set. Is it not better to not announce anything at all instead of announcing hot air?

A: Thanks for the questions.

From my seat, 2019 has been pretty solid in terms of development and adhering to the roadmap and I think credit is certainly due to our talented developers.

Initially when we mapped out the DEX we assumed there would be a much stronger use case from our Dapp ecosystem. As time progressed, we realized it wouldn’t be as useful as we originally hoped (given the limited number of “live” Dapps on our platform) so we pivoted on building the front end.

This was driven by a few factors. First, as mentioned above, there wasn’t a strong need for it given the limited number of Dapps. Second, and perhaps more importantly was the need to build a team around the DEX to manage it going forward (updates/integrations (ie adding new listings)/securities diligence etc). At the time, we didn’t feel like this was a good use of the foundation’s resources. These factors coupled with the ever changing regulatory landscape on exchanges led us to pause “running” it ourselves.

On BTP, we expect private to public integration capabilities in September assuming no delays and we can design the economics and logic. As for public to public, we’re hopeful to remain within the previously stated timeframe (of EOY). To the extent that timeframe changes, we will provide ample notice and reasoning.

If you have any specific BTP development related questions, let me know. I can try to provide a high level overview of where we stand.


Q1: I recall asking this a few months ago with the reply of that you would come back later with an answer. Update on Iconest?

A1: Sorry I don’t recall. What specifically are looking for again?

From a high level, post decentralization, I think the Iconest could morph into a system for launching DAOs for voting/ and or organizational structures in ICON’s ecosystem.

Q2: I was wondering when the public could use the service for easily tokenizing their businesses. I personally have a need for such service if possible.

It seems to have been postponed though, and I wonder if it is being worked on actively.

A2: Got it. Yes, to my knowledge it’s still being worked on. I actually was just looking at the latest presentation and UX walkthrough. Let me circle back w/ a time frame.


Q:

  1. Is DPASS being implemented using Fee 2.0?
  2. If so, is the ICON Foundation providing the ICX to do so? If not, who (or what) is?

A: Currently, ICONLOOP is covering the transaction fees and I believe ICONLOOP is considering the Fee 2.0 implementation for the growth of the DPASS service.


Q: How will ICON tackle the oracle problem? In other words: how will offchain data be integrated into the ICON blockchain?

A: Our plans are still being mapped out. Hopefully we can provide more details in short order.

I’m flagging as a key item for council to discuss.

Marketing

Q: Can we see more efforts made to boast about applications made by Icon? For example celebrating a special number of people using Iconex obtained, followed with a small event of some sort. I sense that people take Icon’s efforts almost for granted, and maybe even Icon do it themselves, as they just seem to move on to the next project; at least that’s the indication I’m getting. I rarely see anyone talking about ‘broof’ (blockchain proof), but outside of the ICON Community: projects like VIDT, which is essentially the same thing (though that’s the only thing they have on an entire token): suck up attention like a vacuum cleaner.

The motivation of this proposal is that historically lots of great projects may get buried in the sand, as nobody cared enough about using it.

A: Thank you for your suggestion and continued interest in the ICON Network. I agree. Sometimes I think we take for granted some of the things we’ve accomplished. Personally, I think we’ve been more vocal recently, but we can still make substantial improvements. I’ll take this suggestion and discuss ways to become effective. Thanks again.

Other

Q: Hi Ricky! My question centers around the interoperability aspect of the ICON project. During the ICO, the ICON project had two primary narratives:

  1. “We are uniquely positioned to have active and influential partnerships with Govt, Healthcare, Insurance, and Education institutions across Asia. We plan to blockchain them and then interconnect them. “
  2. The second, and lesser narrative was “Ethereum of Korea”. Basically ICO platform.

I think 99% of people invested in ICON because of #1. And I know ICON got so popular so fast, because of #1. Its what set ICON apart from the 2000 other projects that were starting with nothing more than an idea and a dream.

In the recent interview with Min on YouTube, he was asked to describe the ICON project today, at the 2 year mark. In his response, he focused 100% on ICON as a startup incubator. He went into great detail about the ICON Republic, and “enabling a thousand businesses” to be conceived by entrepreneurs, raise funding, and issue tokens without the cumbersome requirements of the traditional system.

And then he was finished answering the question.

So the interviewer effectively re-asked the question, this time explicitly mentioning Interoperability. Min effectively said: “Thats our end goal, many years down the line. Thats the long term vision.”

— — — — — — — — — — — —

This is why I ask my question today:

I think there’s a misunderstanding of what ICON is today, among investors. I think this misunderstanding explains why people get so upset when they see things like the recent Samsung decentralized ID partnerships and there is no mention of ICON (public chain/ICX).

If ICON (public chain/ICX) is almost exclusively focused on building another Ethereum (startup incubator and DAO / Dapp platform) then there is no reason ICON (public chain/ICX) would have been part of that Enterperise-level Samsung partnership in the first place. That simply isn’t their focus right now. I think this misunderstanding about ICON’s current / new identity and focus need to be remedied for investors.

— — — — — — — — — — —

He mentioned that during 2018 things changed quite a bit with their vision. That they hired PHD’s who came in and helped restructure the plans, platform, and vision for the project. My question today centers on whether that change is fully understood by investors (including myself).

I always understood ICO’s / STO’s / DAO’s / Ethereum of Korea to be part of the investment I made, but I did not consider this to be particularly interesting, unique, or innovative. It was everything else that excited me because those things were ICONs unique claim to fame. Established, mature connections with Universities, Healthcare and Insurance industries.

So to me, the primary focus was enterprise-level interoperability via friendships in high places. To blockchain them on the public chain soon after getting the platform live, and use the ICX token as fees for their transactions.

— — — — — — — — —

I realize the natural response to this will be that everything is still the same, and interoperability is definitely still what this project is about. So Im hoping to specifically clarify what I’m asking:

In the interview, Min alluded to interoperability being a 5+ year plan, even from today. I think everyone assumed this was the first order of business, and the primary, immediate objective two years ago.

I would like to know if for the most part, for the next 2 years, ICON (public chain/ICX) is going to instead be mostly focused on being a startup incubator/Dapp platform.

I think its important to clarify this for investors because its clear to me that everyone is still thinking that ICON (public chain/ICX) is a project intended primarily to strike major deals with enterprise-level institutions. Going by their expectations and reactions to things, this is what they keep waiting for.

A: Thanks for the questions. I appreciate the effort that went into them.

Like you, I contributed to the ICON project for its vision of interconnecting enterprise (private) and public blockchains to seamlessly transfer data and information across different networks. I thought of ICON as somewhat of a scaling solution or maybe a middleware that could connect to all platforms regardless of the underlying design, and ICX could be used to fuel the ecosystem. At the time of the ICO, this vision was somewhat novel and having an experienced technology partner, theloop (now ICONLOOP) set ICON apart in many ways (eg team, relationships, and experience).

Fast forward to today and the question is has that vision changed and if so why? And if not, what is taking so long to see it through?

First, I would say that the vision hasn’t necessarily changed. But I would say perhaps the scope has tweaked. Originally, the plan was like you said. Onboard all of ICONLOOPs enterprise customers, and connect them to the public Nexus and have freely flowing data across the network, powered by ICX. That’s still the vision, but I think we’re early (Bottom of the 1st, Top of 2nd… early… to use a baseball analogy) and enterprise adoption of public blockchain solutions will take some time and patience.

So what does this mean?

This means we’ll continue to be working on developing all the tools and features for connecting private and public blockchains (and public to public), closely collaborating with the ICONLOOP team and consulting corporates, governments, and other institutions where appropriate, but in parallel, we’ll be working to broaden the scope of the project to include other facets of the space that the foundation finds interesting, such as the concept of DAOs, identity tools and team-based applications that Min has mentioned in recent posts/interviews/meet-ups, etc.

But why?

We want to be building for the vision we see. ICON Republic as a digital representation of a country with governance and economic policy programmed into its core, facilitating the growth and expansion of crypto native and/or new breeds of companies (such as DAOs) while also dedicating resources to the design and implementation of interchain. We believe this path of parallel activity increases the likelihood of the success of the project and frankly speaking, limits the reliance on 3rd parties for short and medium-term success.

Simply put, adoption is disruption. And at the foundation, we don’t want to wait around on others to get off the fence. Although, that’s the home run scenario and one we will continually push :). That said, we want to be more pragmatic and focused on driving utility now and the governance system we’ve designed should allow for this growth.

So what does that mean for timing/roadmap?

  • Post decentralization, BTP will remain a key focus and we hope to resolve public to public interchain by end of the year. If this slips, we’ll be sure to let you know. As part of interchain, we’re currently exploring the design and economics of C-Reps.
  • The logic for EEPs and DBPs is finalized and we’re in the process of building its implementation.
  • As noted above, in parallel with our interchain work, we want to explore building other products and services for our growing community. Specific details will be provided in due course.

Taking a step back, I think it may be helpful to set the stage a bit on the enterprise front from my seat, so apologies in advance for the long response.

To start, I would say the synergistic relationship between our technology partner, ICONLOOP and the foundation is still as strong as ever. ICONLOOP continues to support public blockchain initiatives (despite being an enterprise-focused firm) and we hope to see more public chain use-cases from their corporate clients in the future.

I’m sure everyone is familiar with that response… It leaves a lot to be desired. So I’ll go further.

In reality, the foundation can’t force ICONLOOP enterprise adoption of our public network (or the use of ICX). As much as we would like to, these things take time. The foundation, however, can continue to work in conjunction with ICONLOOP (and their clients) to build features that are currently attractive and/or would be attractive to utilize in the future. The design of Fee 2.0 fits this description.

Peeling back the layers.

I think there are two key pieces to the puzzle to ultimately fulfill our vision of creating the largest decentralized network in the world. The first is on the technology front and the second is what I’ll blanketly call community (which is basically a catch-all category encompassing education, relationship management across all stakeholders, and many many others, etc). On the technology front, historically the foundation has focused nearly all its efforts on facilitating the build-out of tooling and products to make ICON’s public blockchain a desirable and efficient network for enterprise use-cases (in consultation with ICONLOOP). We will continue to use funds for this purpose, but as noted previously, we’ll also include other scopes as well.

Within the community, ICONLOOP has every intention to push for public blockchain adoption but trying not to speak out of turn, it’s been a slow grind. In my opinion, I’d say we’re at the point on the educational front where most (but not all) corporates can see the benefits of blockchain in some form or fashion within their business. But I think that’s just the first hurdle. Still, some corporates remain skeptical around security and reputational/operational risk of public networks. And despite some of the catchy headlines you may read on Coindesk or The Block, overall enterprise adoption of public blockchain is still relatively tepid.

Moreover, most of the MoUs and partnerships you’ll read about in the blockchain space are at the POC stage (or even the planning stage) and most (nearly all?) will remain there without ever seeing the next step. Unfortunately, that’s not a sensational statement or claim. I’ve seen this story play out over the past few years and anecdotally, I hear it from some of the top players in the enterprise space (IBM, R3, etc) at nearly every enterprise-focused event I attend. Again, I’ll reiterate it’s still so early.

Closer to home, ICONLOOP has done an amazing job in developing relationships at the highest levels in Korea (Banks, Hospitals, Insurance Companies, Governments, etc). However, I’d say even ICONLOOP has suffered from this same industry-wide stall. Thankfully, ICONLOOP is focused on a market known for staying on the bleeding edge with regards to adoption.

That said, I’m optimistic that over time the delineation between private/public blockchain starts to blur. And at some point soon, corporations will realize that it’s just a spectrum. That there are trade-offs on both sides and ultimately the merits of open, permissionless and decentralized and markets will win out. The time frame is the tricky part.

Other closing points that I didn’t touch on in the above:

my-ID and the related FSC sandbox are separate from the Samsung announcement, however, the quality of participants are of equal standards. Note, my-ID is focused on financial transactions (opening bank accounts etc) and therefore will need to clear more stringent hurdles and ultimately will be able to facilitate more use cases. Also, I’d reiterate that my-ID was the only blockchain-based ID project selected for this coveted position.

So why did Samsung announcement make more headlines?

Unfortunately, ICONLOOP doesn’t have the brand recognition of a Samsung on a global scale, so the press pushed that content more. It’s something ICONLOOP is aware of and are working to improve. Again, this takes time.

Lastly, I think the community needs to understand that despite ICONLOOP’s strong presence in the Korean market, ICONLOOP won’t be apart of every single blockchain-related news release that pertains to the Korean market.


Q: Follow-up to the chat today (24 July) in telegram regarding the staking burn penalty:

I think an important question for most investors will be whether they have the ability to transition their delegation to a different team before any penalties are assessed once concern arises.

There was discussion that there may be a maximum of a two day lapse before a burn. This concerns me, as I understood there to also be a 20 day unstaking period.

1a) Is this a concern? Why or why not?

1b) Is there a scenario whereby somebody paying reasonable attention might still get stuck having their tokens burned because they are physically incapable of moving them quickly enough?

A: Hello, Happy to clear some things up. First on terminology, staking is the process of converting unstaked ICX to staked ICX. Voting is the process of delegating your staked ICX to whichever candidate you wish to vote for.

In your scenario, if you were to stake your ICX and then delegate to a P-Rep who then struggles to maintain his/her/their productivity ratio, you would be able to immediately transfer your delegated staked ICX to another P-Rep who is maintaining a better ratio.

In general I don’t foresee this being a huge issue as 1) an 85% productivity ratio is extremely low and 2) there’s no incentive for P-Reps to run even close to that level as it will scare off voters.

If you’re paying reasonable attention this should not be an issue. Personally, I’ll be paying more attention to the productivity ratio over the first few months post decentralization given the limited cumulative time period of the calculation.


Q: Will there be any UI Dashboard / Portal to reflect the P-Reps activity along with few stats like Ranking, Productivity Ratio etc. to help stakers to quickly make a decision ?

A: Yes. A team is focused on its design as we speak.


Q: What was the extent of Don Tapscott’s involvement as an advisor to ICON and to what extent, if any, is he still involved today?

A: Min and Don are still in contact on a regular basis. Outside of consulting/sharing his vision for the space and how ICON can solve many of the pain points he sees in the industry, Don has also provided a number of opportunities for ICON to interact and participate in events held by Blockchain Research Institute (“BRI”). These events typically include some of the best and brightest leaders not only in the blockchain space, but in their respective industries. Just recently, ICON was one of lead platform participants in the inaugural BRI conference in Toronto.

Alex Tapscott (Don’s son) has also been a good resource for Min and myself providing introductions to trade and regulatory groups and other potential partners.

We are continually looking for more ways to collaborate in the future.


Q: Hello, as August draws near will Icon release a guide for how Iconists can vote? I really want to take part of the 15% returns in pre-election but I haven’t seen any updates on what I need to do. Please help clear up this information because I’m very interested in staking my tokens and helping support the network.

A: Yes, we will be releasing a tutorial ahead of the pre-voting process.

We will also be active in the official channels to make sure that all can participate and that any questions/concerns are answered/resolved.

We are striving to make this as user-friendly as possible, so please let us know of any feedback in August.


Q: Most probably this has been answered already — about the 6%. Instead of introducing a penalty to the delegates in that form, wouldn’t it be possible to force instead on the voting for delegates/preps to be obliged to vote for 10–20 p reps, ie break down the committed capital to e.g. 10 different portions? If the delegates don’t want to select, then the system can randomly select for them. A penalty to be given to p reps for non performance etc and rewards will be frozen for those p reps, thus people having delegated to these will not receive rewards. Even the p reps should distribute their capital to more p reps for staking with the same methodology. The fixed number of necessary p- rep votes should be high enough to avoid collusion (if possible). Everyone then is responsible for their vote and p-reps for their performance. Also, we are talking about collective governance but my understanding is that these points were not discussed with not even the p-reps. Isn’t collaboration a better way forward? Sharing a suggestion, brainstorming together (at least with the most important counterparts) would potentially bring better results. Finally, is the yellow paper written in stone or up to suggestions (such as the above)? Thanks and I hope that icon succeeds and any staking decision will not deter people from participating into the staking process.

A: Thanks for the question and suggestion. I think your idea is interesting but with every idea there are always pros and cons (or tradeoffs). Like we’ve said previously, everything in the yellow paper is up for debate afterdecentralization, as decentralized governance will allow for many changes to be made by ICONists. While we think spreading votes around was a positive consequence of the 6% burn, this was also put in place to stop self-elected P-Reps from continuing to be a P-Rep despite malicious behavior.


Q: If mods can be done to the wallets I would go a step further and have auto staking equally allocated to ALL available P-Reps. This gives the minimum risk to ICONists and keeps the P-Reps on their toes.

A: That would be a decent idea to reduce your risk to a certain extent. However, I think there is probably a tipping point where that strategy could actually becomes more risky. Lower ranked P-Reps (such as those outside of the top 40 or so?) may not be incentivized to run backup nodes, due to lower reward rates.

But to reiterate….as mentioned previously, since the 85% productivity ratio is extremely low and likely won’t happen in a short period of time, you should be able to manage your ICX without losing anything.


Q: My main question is:

When will all exchange, foundation and team members related addresses be marked on explorer like in almost every other projects?

Additionaly i would also like to know:

After advisors selling story im curious to know when will you make a public list with how much coins did each advisor receive so we are able to check this with them and to check what did they do to earn this. When will you make detailed financial report since im curious to know is Icon foundation money used to fund Iconloop employees, office rent, advertising etc.

A: Thanks for the questions. It’s unlikely that we’ll mark the foundation or team member addresses. Mainly for security reasons. However, we are considering marking exchanges when we roll out a new update.

I’m not sure what you mean by the selling story. I guess you’re implying that the distributed tokens were sold? That’s not necessarily the case as most of those tokens no longer in ICAs are on 3 year vesting schedules.

Lastly, we are considering a financial report. Unfortunately, I don’t have a timeline for when or if we’ll introduce it.


Q: How are C-reps chosen? Are there already C-reps lined up for the start of decentralization? Thanks.

A: Hello! Thanks for the questions. For now we are concentrating our efforts on the P-Rep election. Therefore there will not be any C-Reps in September.

That said, we are in the process of designing the economics/governance logic of the C-Rep nodes and will release more details once finalized.


Q: Can I stake on more than 3 P-reps with one wallet or do I have to make a new wallet?

A: When you stake your ICX in your wallet, you’ll be able to delegate to up to 10 P-Reps. Therefore, you don’t have to make a new wallet to delegate to 3 P-Reps.

Obviously, if you want to delegate to more than 10, you will need multiple wallets.


Q: Can you give a time line For the team funds to be distributed?

A: Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, I don’t have a clear timeline for all of the distributions.

But here’s an example of the process (to my knowledge):

At the end of each year, council members decide if the contributions of a specific contractor warrants an ICX token distribution based on perhaps exceeding some specific KPIs and/or other goal. If so, a reward is given. In the past, these distributions vest over a 3 year period.

This is done on a case-by-case basis, so again it’s hard to provide a clear and definitive timeline. It’s also hard to know how much will be distributed during a given year.


Q: ICON set a maximum token payment of 12,000 ICX to each contractor working on the mission critical stress test project. Your blockchain shows that 2 contractors received over 216,000 ICX in total.

In your last AMA (13th June) you were asked to clarify the situation regarding contractors that were not eligible for ICX as they were in breach of your published terms and conditions.

You replied “Yes, ICON is reviewing applicants and fielding complaints. As you mentioned below, a number have been disqualified thus far and more could be disqualified going forward.”

Why were you still paying hundreds of thousands of ICX to contractors as late as the 25th June when your online schedule of contractors showed they had already been disqualified?

A: I don’t have full intel on the transaction challenge (ie the dates you reference, scheduled payments etc) as I wasn’t involved.

That said, it’s my understanding that the challenge had some mishaps. But it was re-initiated a few days back and additional rewards were paid out to teams.


Q: Ricky do you honestly think that a policy of no negativity is beneficial to the ICON chain? Personally I can’t see the chain improving without a major switch in policy. I think it’s time that you created channels of communication that can actually improve the chain. Reddit is not an appropriate channel as evidenced by the level of down voting for perfectly reasonable questions.

A: I don’t really follow. I don’t think anyone involved at ICON is policing negativity…

Yes, we’ve had some heated moments, but that’s all good. It’s a family thing


Q: Hi Ricky, I am asking for your personal opinion, not the company’s. Do you think we will see icx price going up anytime soon? Possibly back to ATH in a year or two?

A: Ahh man…

Unfortunately I can comment on price etc.

From my point of view, I will say that the space has A LOT of room for growth and adoption. We’re still in the early innings and I think ICON can be play a major role in the ecosystem in the future.


As always, please feel free to reach out to us if you ever have questions about ICONation and thank you for stopping by our Medium for the latest!

By Iconists, for Iconists

ICONation


Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade