Than he should also add progressive option with defferentiation in % based on days staked.
Also time ranges should be proposed and voting results should be treated very carefully. Example, some people may vote for 2 weeeks (30%), other people may vote for 3 weeks (31%), remaining 39% may vote to exclude or decrease unstaking period. From the first look 39% has higher voters, but people who voted for extended period in total is higher (30%+31%=61%) .
I stand with the benefits of longer unbonding periods. People voting for 2 and 3 weeks should vote for the same option as they share the same view. Otherwise, they will remain divided and lose the vote.
It would definitely increase staking participation. I would rather higher staking participation than a higher APY for a limited number of holders. Most long-term holders will hold regardless of the unbonding period.
Not sure how this would impact gZIL price since the measure would be implemented after gZIL minting is over.
They are our tokens.
We have in some cases had to fight tooth and nail with CEXās & DEXās to get them in our possession so that they can be staked onto the network.
Why penalize someone for taking back what is rightfully theirs to begin with? It is not as though the time outside of their hands is doing any favors for the network or other token holders. I imagine that there could be a system created to penalize routine token holders who are abusing the system, but again, how do you go about doing that, and why when it is their property to begin with.
This isnāt Twitter, this is a voting pool. I have my vote for my perspective and you have yours. Be more professional please.
Tier based reward scheme will not be possible in the current phase of staking
Actually I am trying to keep this chat proffessional and concentrated on the whole ecosystem, but not my personal problems. Saying about personal emergency cases is unprofessional - when we discuss important question about the protocol and potential negative effect on price, ecosystem, etc.
The concept of staking was made from the beginning to decrease tokens in circulation to decrease selling pressure and to reward real zilliqa supporters with Gzil.
I still stand behind my vote. 1 week is long enough.
I would think if the option to stake daily (24 hour period) for a lower percentage than longer time, such as a week or two, then gas fees to do this would pay for itself and could add a small increase in percentage to the long tern holders. Direct incentive to hold. Set a separate fluid account to manage liquidity for those daily investors. I think it would be a hit and make ZIL more important on the blockchain helping it rocket faster to the moon.
My thoughts: If the aim is to attract non-zil holders to join the community, shorter staking period will be more attractive compared to a longer one. Would be good to have the option to increase staking period when they are comfortable. But too many tiers, too complex may drive away the newbie investors.
Locked staking (especially 2 weeks which actually took me over 3 weeks, twice and led to me not staking at all the last few months) only benifits whale traders. While we are all locked they get to capitalise on the price hike cause by all the locked tokensā¦they can also run blockchain analytics to plan their pump and dumps based upon commn dates when lots of coin are due to be unlocked. Itās stupid and it is one thing that will put Cardano above the likes of ZIL, DOT, ATOM and many others with a time lock.
HOwever, I would stake again if it was 1 week and actually took 1 week to unlockā¦and as someone else stated, if you had tiers it would be even better.
dont like the idea at all 2 weeks is not a long time and reduces pump and dumps the trade off for the lock up is the fantastic apy and gzil. stakers know what they are signing up for and the 32% of CC staked clearly demonstrate that. not happy at all if this goes through
3 days max! So newcomers wonāt fear and adopt zilliqa more. And to keep up with the competition. Like Cardano for example. Much 
@junhaotan So now ? how can we vote with gzil to apply this modification ?
This is not final till it is voted and the result will be based on the formal vote.
We will like to go ahead with signal and formal governance vote. However, the core team right now have been very tied up with the interoperability bridge testing at the moment. If the community will like to take this forward, we will encourage them to do so. If not, I will c cycle back to here the moment there is some limited bandwidth on the core team end.
The community (and me) dont really know how to creat a āformal governance voteā on zil.
I donāt see zilliqa on the list here Snapshot
but if its the Zilliqa team who must create it, I would like to remind you that a survey would be needed with an option to remove / reduce / or increase this period
The process is formally described in ZIP/zip-12.md at master Ā· Zilliqa/ZIP Ā· GitHub
It is not rocket science. In fact, ZIP-18 on changing gas unit cost for payment transaction for initiated and written by a community member and refined with the help of the community.
The ZIP for this proposal has been written and is in draft mode. Please be patient if you are not sure how to proceed with it. We will like a proposal to be launch, spread awareness, properly discussed, and go for a formal vote. All these required a considerable amount of time, which right now we do not have any due to the upcoming interoperability bridge development effort.
I just started the movement, i am not qualified to do it.
But yes, it would be better if Zilliqa created it.
We need to know if that will have an negative impact on reward or whatever.
Im gonna wait 
thx
You are correct, phew, good thing I came back to check the lack of progress on this as I almost staked my 2M ZILā¦now I will be dumping half instead to invest elsewhere.
I only unstaked originally as I was unstaking a portion and it took 3 weeks instead of 2ā¦so then I unstaked all from the 4 pools I was in and they all took 3 weeks. I will never stake 100% of my ZIL again till the time is reduced, and is the actual time advertised (but I understand there was some node issue which increased unstake time and that was apparently fixed).
The less the locking time, the more the adoptionā¦a prime example is ADA with no delegated staking lock and their price held better than ZIL, DOT and others that trap investors. No one wants to marry their investment, especially in Finance 2.0.
Best to be better, be flexible and you will excite modern investors. Rigidity is best left with Dinosaur banking/ Finance 1.0
Exactly this is why I unstaked as the 14 day period actually took 3 weeks last time, so I have gone the last 3 or 4 months with no staking. The only people locked staking benefits in the grand scheme are whales who get to dump on the price action caused by the trapped investors.