Changes to Zilliqa Unstaking/Unbonding Period & MORE!

Option 2. As far as I know the idea behind the unstaking period is to aid price stability. The theory goes that if everyone can unstake whenever they want they could mass sell in fear causing the price to tank even more. Well, ZIL price tanks in bear markets as is so the sought after stability doesn’t currently exist. Let’s not pretend we’re dealing with a price stable asset.

Blockchain value is driven by the number of users. To attract users, we need to compete with other chains. Other chains allow for instant unstaking. We should too. Long term, Zilliqa is much more than a staking platform. However, in the current crypto market staking is a major “feature” for many “users” (investors, traders, speculators, etc).

If we attract more users, even short term ones, that’s more people talking about and using the chain. More users leads to more developers, leading to more dApps, more users, more transactions, and on and on. I’m not a math type but I think it works like this:

  • Number of long term stakers + Number of short term stakers > Number of long term stakers
  • Growth of ZIL chain with long term stakers + short term stakers > Growth of ZIL chain with long term stakers

I would pick option 4 with a much lower penalty, around 1%-2%. However, I don’t want 3-6 months of Zilliqa team time spent on this when Option 2 can be done in 3 days. I’d rather ZIL team spends 3-6 months adding as many ERC tokens to the bridge as possible than messing around with staking.

Sidenote 1: Zilliqa needs an Oracle to determine avg. blocks per day over a rolling recent period (say last 7 and 30 days) so that calculating days is easier on an ongoing basis across the blockchain. Does this exist?


If the penalty Zil collected is distributors among the existing stakers it will a added bonus to stay staked. Also will protect from any price fluctuation.

For me its either option 1 - no change or option 2 - remove unbounding period

Option 3 is a mix of both really and doesnt serve anything constructive > youre likely to arrive at the same issue.

Option 4: yes, there are other ways to incentivise gZil holders > via pillar protocol or liquidity provision etc. > so its not really smart to apply this to the unbounding scope - in fact it may take some focus away from the core purpose of gZil - governance (and this needs stability that comes from option 1 or 2 anyway).

Option 1: Serving Long term holders
Option 2: Serving Traders + long term holders

If option 3 is adopted, then its clear they are traders / less long term holders and I’ll rathar they leave the platform and trade elsewhere and we can remove the unnecessary noise and complains of Zil is blah blah blah negative and start comparing us to Ada > its the same noise as option 1 - today.

So if we have to change this, i’ll vote for Option 2.

This will be a test on the resolve of long term holders and can be seen as faith in zilliqa that they do not trade / sell their Zil > which adds to a stronger narrative that Zilliqa is backed by strong fundamentals and strong community / believers.

Also, the goal of staking is also to make the network more secure > so more stakes = less APY > its an eventuality anyway if Zil continues to gain adoption.

When we reach 5% APY, you will arrive at the same issue > for traders > 5% is too little so I want to get out but its 2 weeks and oh Ada is better. But for long term holders > its the same and in fact more secure with their investments knowing that the network is more secure.

So Option 2 for me.

Price performance will come in time. Markets are irrational.

What’s critical is how fast can we achieve network effects, while maintaining stability of the network which option 1 and 2 will serve, with Option 2 enhancing the believe and trust of the protocol from whomever that holds Zil (traders or investors etc) which adds to securing network effects.

Also if we stick to option 1 > i like the idea brought up by Amrit that we can switch wallets without unbounding. Im having this issue where i’ll like to switch to a cold wallet but do not want to unstake as i’ll like to keep accumulating Zil / gZil without losing 2 weeks.

Which may equate to: Option 5? Continue to earn rewards while unbounding over 2 weeks? - traders not 100% happy but less noisy as they still get some earnings to mitigate their basic fear when market price falls (they care about $$$ basically - also we may not lose them forever as their market price psychological “adventure” may not be as bad as their experience today), while long term holders can reconsider their decision while still earning the same during this period or may return once they see network effects - we may not lose them forever.

1 Like

Option#4 is the best. gZIL has been neglected like a step child by the team. High time it receives its due. :+1: :muscle: :metal:

Hi guys,

For Option 4, we have @ProofofMilan (Milan Shoukri) sharing that there is a community-driven development on the use case of GZIL including the ability to withdraw your staking $ZIL without the development timeframe but may have some implications involved. More news will be updated in several weeks so I think we will wait while continually discussing the options. Once the news is up and details in, we have a better stance.

24/7/2021 - (Updates on GZIL on ZIP4)

22/7 - (Working on potentially unstaking with a penalty without voting to change of contract) (Use cases of Gzil are being worked on)

Option 1-3: We may still bring this to vote after watching the news from @ProofofMilan (Milan Shoukri) 1 and 2 don’t change much fundamentally. If option 2 passes, it will disrupt those plans but having an option is interesting.

Thanks for taking the time to look through and advise. The dev perspective definitely delve deeper than what we can foresee.

After the success of bridge and end of Gzil minting, I definitely hope to discuss future staking uses that keeps up the edge and interests. I have no idea what most of the suggested options are but if it’s finance related, I am definitely interested to research and discuss.

I couldn’t agree with you more.
The unbound period is pointless and actually does more harm than good. It clearly does not serve its purpose, we only have to look at recent market volatility to understand this. Plus, unbound periods are very unattractive to new investors and has huge negative connotations, especially long unbound periods. Sadly it seems that most ppl in the Zil ecosystem fail to see this

We need the team to do something serious gor gZIL. Not just say “community driven initiatives”. gZIL is neglected seriously. the massive dump of gZIl is mostly because of the ZILSWAP rewards changes fiasco.

I go for option 2. I want to unstake my coins when I want to and do not have to wait a long time.

1 Like

I want to unstake my coins when I want to.

A locked staking option can be very interesting!