ICON [ICX] - Discussions with PREPS and IISS 3.0 Proposal

I didn’t want to dominate the Meta Game forum so I opted to start a new forum if that is alright.

With positive growth in staking and even getting involved with staking myself recently I found it was not easy to find information on what each Prep group is currently doing and offers the ICON space. This since the Pub has a massive ICON community and always been a great source of discussion I was hoping we could use this thread as a place for PRep’s to introduce themselves with an explanation of the value they add and why we ‘stakers’ should vote for them (Please have your group sticky for reference to changes instead of readers having to scroll for changes) - if something like this already exists but I did not see it on a brief search.

This will also help us to contact PReps as I have noticed several PReps do not have official websites or contact information on the ICONex listings.

EDIT: I understand that much of this information is available on icon.community under candidates but the list feels unsubstantial and this allows for a more personal forum for questioning.

EDIT: I forgot - please also add your take on the IISS 3.0 proposal and how you feel this would affect your group. There is also a thread for this at https://forum.icon.community/t/iiss-3-0-proposal


Here is a copy of our stance regarding the IISS 3.0 proposal

Decision: Approved


Our stance from the beginning is that to improve the DPoC model, all ecosystem problems need to be addressed. We have a strong belief that a combination of IISS, CPF and PoC variables is needed to solve the centralization and vote distribution, transparency and accountability and finally the voter’s apathy.

The proposed IISS is a step in a good direction and while it may not be addressing all of the problems, it is a way forward and a sign that Foundation is aware of the situation and most importantly willing to act to improve it.


We have strong support for a higher fee as we believe a strong initiative is needed to divert the P-Reps and contribution seekers to the CPF. CPF is a backbone of the system and it will stimulate teams to provide a better, more transparent and accountable project and overall business plan.

The proposed changes to the fund fee did surprise us a lot, especially after going through the numbers. To be honest, we were expecting more of the cosmetic changes not a solution like this. We are positively surprised by the bold move of foundation to go straight after the B1 rewards and redirect them into the fund. This has our full support as it is a clear sign Foundation is ready to do what is right for the ecosystem. Well done guys!


The bond requirement has our support from the start. It is a great initiative to rule out a lot of potential bad actors from the game. We were supporting the higher bond requirement, the one that relates to the higher period needed for a node to generate the required amount of reward ICX. We don’t mind going up to 12% bond which would represent a year-long reward commitment. Why such a high bond %? The only reason is to provide extra stimulation for the P-Reps to go through the CPF to fund their projects. As mentioned before, we don’t lack the funds, we are lacking good ideas and the projects.

Governance Slashing

This may be the only part of the proposal we are unsure about. While we support removing the 6% burn fee from the voters, we are unsure if the governance slashing is the right way to go. We have a strong belief a DPoC model should be more focused to stimulate the contribution and not try to penalize the lack of it. We will look forward to seeing other available options to get around this problem. Our best intention would be to stimulate the passive voters to be more included in the voting process and let them penalize the teams absent from the governance process.

To include the voters, an indicator of the team contribution needs to be presented to passive voters clearly and visibly. We support the idea of adding the PoC indicator to the wallet directly related to the P-Rep list. If CPF does work in an intended way, it will be much easier to track and evaluate contributions.

Teams receive a reward based on the votes that voters are giving them. In the other words, those who are voting are the ones who are funding the teams in the current system. Our rewards our not our own, its the funds that voters provided us with. Thats how we see the model.

In the current IISS 2.0, teams can use your money to work on something only they know, for the salary they choose, with the unknown budget to deliver something they want.

In the current IISS 3.0, teams will seek approval to use your money to work on the project they propose, for the defined salary with a defined budget, to deliver something network needs and approves.


Our stance is we agree with everything besides bonding part since that will only cause centralization on the long run. We as our team members didn’t benefit single cent from our prep candidacy we are not backed by any company our only source is prep reward which comes from our voters. We are still spending our free time on icon to do develop (Literally we work for free but since we are all already have our jobs and pretty comfortable that’s not a issue for us). All of our transactions are public you can see them. Our last transaction have 700 USD extra which for extra developer work we need for icon tipping bot. We realize we can’t commit enough time to make the product reality soon enough so we hire some to sort out a lot of issues conduct tests. Provide some context there are some grant requests for tip bot development which you can found here https://forum.icon.community/c/g/31 their overall cost is 8000$. While they are just for tip bot we ware still developing and expanding possibilities of the bot. We are just a group of developers with a lot of experience trying to do good for icon with funding of community. Yes we are not putting our money but what we produced so far and our future productions will be always for community with 0 monetization unless it needed to be monetized for some reason. Since we worked for free we can also cover 12% of bond (bond rate is 6%) with our rewards as if right now and Foundation said they will give a lot of time for team to gain collect rewards so they can cover it. In the end it still came to some issue we put that limit discourage community groups to be involved. Yes existing ones will have time but what about the ones will come in the future. As we expressed in every way we believe bond and any of these kind of putting economical barriers to supposed to be permission-less public chains cause centralization and we are against it. We hope you all read it carefully and realize the decision we have is nothing to cover our self or gain benefit.


Thanks for creating this post and hello to everyone!

First I’ll introduce our team.

@Espanicon is a team focused on breaking the Spanish language barrier to increase the reach of the #ICONProject to 400 million more people in the Spanish speaking communities of the world we do this by collaborating with other teams to translate and create content in Spanish.

You can read more about us in our website https://espanicon.team, follow us on Twitter (@espanicon) or talk directly to us on our telegram channel t.me/espanicon

In terms of the IISS 3.0 we believe is definetly and improvement on 2.0, it shows that the foundation really listened to our recommendations and our worries as we all expressed them in the forum and the telegram channels.

Overall we agree with the IISS 3.0, we made some small recommendations in the forum post, we hope that the foundation takes them into account and we are waiting for the new draft to come out to continue the discussion :+1:


I couldn’t agree more with your comments. I likes the new proposal as well. When will ut be implemented if approved?


Thank you for the feedback. The implementation depends mostly on the Foundation and while I cant say for certain when it will happen, my best guess would be 3-6 months from now.

1 Like

💰 YEN · DCTV ·️ Bitcoin Lambo · 10 Days of Bitcoin ·️ CEO's Brainpan 🧠