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?