What are your thoughts on making the unbonding period more flexible? This has been the topic of discussion a few times on TG. With the launch of the portal, I decided to continue/start the discussion over here. See image below for the proposal.
What are your thought on the penalty? Too high or too low?
IMO one of the reasons staking was created is to incentivize long term holders. Therefore, every action taken to modify the current state must be biased towards incentivizing this group. Hence the 10% at 1700 blocks. The idea is to discourage early unbonding but provide that option.
Note: Choosing a 24,000 block unbond means no fees except gas fees.
How frequently do you think the fees should be re-distributed back to delegators?
After our discussions on TG, one idea that I had was to take the penalty and deposit it into a GrantsDAO. The GrantsDAO could fund project development initiatives by the community using the funds collected from the penalty.
I think the current unbonding period works perfectly well - no reason to reinvent the wheel at this venture. This proposal will encourage and enable more traders to stake which erodes one of the major intents of staking - to reward long term HODL’s while discouraging trading. If anything, we should be increasing the unbonding period to one month.
Keeping the unbonding period for $Zil at 2 weeks (if not longer) would probably encourage long term holder participation. It could be a good idea, though, to think about the unbonding period for $bZil within a different time frame. Thoughts?
I don’t have enough information on $bzil to speak on that just yet but from what I hear it sounds exciting and I look forward to learning more about it.
We will see how it plays out. Essentially you deposit your $Zil into a staking contract to receive $bZil, and use the $bZil as collateral in the protocol in lieu of $Zil. You can then use the staking rewards and deposit it into a contract, then pay the interest with the future interest earned. At least that is the idea, I think.
From an investor standpoint, there are several initiatives to drive network volume we continue to hear about and support as a community:
Zilhive
Zillacracy
Soon Zilliqa Capital
I think returning to long-term holders as added incentive more reason to continue to support the vision rather than another initiative where the community and attraction from investment community towards Zilliqa has come from the brilliant tokenomics design.
I think using that pool for further potential rewards, at this stage, would provide best bang from attraction standpoint.
Unless this would be a separate DAO token opportunity, where direct success/failure of DAO can be measured.
Otherwise it seems unattractive like where you throwing in potential rewards with open hope to who exactly and for what, another lottery?
Yes, this is an interesting proposal which doesn’t change the default unbonding period. It’s up to the the deligators who doesn’t want to wait for the default unbonding period to take the penalty. The penalty should burn the circulating supply, which will also help Zilliqa tokenomics. Something like this is pretty cool in my opinion. Maybe Zilliqa will have a +100% gain in a single day and I sure think that all long term investors should have an flexible options such as this to choose when to undeligate and take profits.
The unbonding is less of an issue for me then the fee for reward claiming .It is kind of discouraging for the new guy with limited capital .Take for example trying to compound your earned interest with 1k zil, it is a losing battle .As for myself I mine zil and can steadily increase my staking power over time but for the rest of the little guys who dont know how to mine and have limited resources, the high fee’s can be a deal braker and once the 14 days are over they may exit zil never to return. I admittedly almost did just that before I discovered I could mine. I would think that maybe a staking fee pool that helps out the little guys might solve this. But I’m new here so what do I know. . For us small fry out here that see where zil is heading and have high hopes for the project, well we just want to be involved.
I do think it’s a really good idea, like the system already in place on Bitmax (which offers only 2 options). I’m not sure, though, about whether the 5 or 10 percentage of penalty is optimal, but I think it should be called simply a fee, not a penalty.
I second that opinion. A good balance would be to allocate a portion to stake holders and a portion to a GrantDAO fund for further development.
I like the idea of a penalty that I would label a “premium” for those not willing to wait for the ~14 day unbonding period and particularly like the 1,700 min block to avoid gaming the system when there is price action happening. Allowing a ~24h min period would discourage this but allow flexibility for someone to retrive funds for liquidity purposes.
Overal, I would vote in favor for such plan as long as it is as simple as 3 options to unstake:
~24h
~1 week
~2 weeks
This would provide enhanced flexibility and appease the concerns of many.
On an another end, I would be interested to explore another type of incentive that would reward long term holders in a form of "dividend’ provided every year for those who have staked for a 12 month period and the “premium” collected could be used towards that amongts other sources.
An option could be a “fair” fee that would increase according to your stake. Large whales would pay larger fees to claim rewards and small stakers less fees which would balance the overal fee structure.
That is exactly the type idea needed in my humble opinion. Its great to see that as a community we can explore and express opinions. This is something that is missing in the world as of late. Keep this up guys and gals we’re on the right track. Even if what is debated does not pan out just talking out your points is important and may lead to something greater in the future.
