Summary:
Hi all,
Actually the Unstaking period is 14days, i just simply propose to reduce it by Half (or lower)
Motivation:
I think the current period is inadequate and not encourage the new investors to Stake.
reduce or delete it can increase adoption
Personally I don’t support this. The lock up period is to reward long term users. People who aren’t willing to agree to an unbonding period are likely not supporting the project for the long term. I’d consider voting for a tiered solution where you can select your unbonding period but get a lower % apy for lower unbonding period.
I think we need to have 30 days of unstaking period to defferentiate long-term supporters from speculators. Look at Switcheo-Demex - 30 days. As far as I know Polkadot also has more than 30 days of unstaking. Unstaking period differentiates long-term supporters from speculators. 14 days is a very moderate and balanced term comparing to other blockchains.
Unstaking period also creates certain barriers to exchanges staking. Lowering or removing unstaking period will give all exchanges possibility to stake coins and significantly lowering APY.
Thus, if we remove 14 days or reduce significantly:
I would also would like to hear from you zilartist:
PS - If we are talking about changes to APY - we need to explore progressive staking APY. Example, if you have 0 days of unstaking - your apy is 1%; 7 days - 3%; 14 days - 5%; 30 days - 15%; 50 days - 20%. Numbers are given just for general concept - they are not based on any economical research.
I wouldn’t support it now as the incentives include also GZIL until october. After october I’d consider a tiered solution.
I like that, custom unbounding period
As a long term hodler, I would like to have a longer unstaking period rather than a short one. Longer staking period seperate true believers and traders. So NO for me
Unfortunately, will have to be on the No side for this
We may consider using the current APY + coefficient based on unbonding period to reward longer unbonding period stakers:
Current APR: 13.79% for 4.75 billion $ZIL staked. The coefficiency targets computing powers and take from those with lower unbonding period and give to those who have longer periods to continue matching 13.79% APR in total.
Tier 1: 30 days unbonding
13.79% + coefficieny multiply (30/51 days)
Tier 2: 14 days unbonding
13.79% + coefficieny multiply (14/51 days)
Tier 3: 7 days unbonding
13.79% + coefficieny multiply (7/51 days)
Tier 4: No unbonding
13.79% + coefficieny multiply (0/51 days)
I do not support a change in the unstaking period, but would support a penalty forfeiture amount for those that want to unstable sooner. With forfeiture zils either burned or distributed to current stakers
Totally disagree. Longer unbonding encourages those of us who are here to support the project. We don’t need speculators.
Agree with that. Lower APY for lower unbounding period makes perfect sense.
Hello everyone,
The current smart contract currently does not allow for variation of staking rewards. Hence, that will not be possible right now.
On the unbonding period, it is currently set at 30,800 blocks. This number can be adjusted. Will like to see a discussion on what is a suitable number from gZIL holder’s point of view.
One easy way is that we can do a forum (non-binding) vote here to get a sense first? We can go with 3 options
If we were to adjust the unbonding period for Zilliqa staking, what is the new unbonding block number do you want to change to?
Note: This is a straw poll and is not a signal or formal governance vote.
0 voters
I personally feel like 1 week is long enough. If someone wants to pull, a week is still a long time. If someone has an emergency and they need the money, they should not have to wait two weeks or one month to get their money back(or a portion of their rewards). That is ridiculous.
Again. As I have stated. 2 weeks I believe is perfect. Love the option of allowing those who want out earlier to accept penalty. This penalty shall then be used to benefit the all current stakers through burning or additional staking distribution
Or we can propose an alternative: keep the 2-week unbonding period until gZIL minting is finished, then drop the unbonding period to 0 days (or another timeline agreed upon by the community). 0 days/instant would ensure widespread staking participation (60%+) and would be in line with peer protocols.
If there are security concerns, 2 - 7 days is fine too.
Is there a possibility to adjust rewards based on unbonding periods?
Instant withdrawals may add a penalty of say 10% like Carbon token: Staking
Besides, we may consider using the current APY + coefficient based on unbonding period to reward longer unbonding period stakers:
Current APR: 13.79% for 4.75 billion $ZIL staked. The coefficiency targets computing powers and take from those with lower unbonding period and give to those who have longer periods to continue matching 13.79% APR in total.
Tier 1: 30 days unbonding
13.79% + coefficieny multiply (30/51 days)
Tier 2: 14 days unbonding
13.79% + coefficieny multiply (14/51 days)
Tier 3: 7 days unbonding
13.79% + coefficieny multiply (7/51 days)
Tier 4: 3 days unbonding
13.79% + coefficieny multiply (0/51 days)
Tier 5: Instant withdrawal
10% penalty of your withdrawals burned
The tier allow stakers to choose their portfolio on the different portfolio like
Tier 1: Extremely long term hodler (gets rewarded the most)
Tier 2: Midterm hodler comfortable with 2 weeks unbonding and enjoying a not bad reward
Tier 3: Short-term hodler that wants to give themselves time to consider after unstaking on what to do with the zils.
Tier 4: Weakhands wanting to sell buy have 3 days to reconsider
Tier 5: Buy high sell low degens, gets a penalty for withdrawing instantly
Pls add the option of having no bounding period at all.
Bad Idea. It would cause a massive drop of staking holders and sell pressure for gzil
You should think in advance about emergency cases. Before staking!