How about having a self Governance Model in addition to a community based voting model in which a person wishing to lock their Zil will have the option to lock from 1-3 years.A person willing to do this will get a much more higher rate staking reward which can be used in combination with the Pillar protocol to get better rates and pay off periods…the higher rewards will also pay off loan faster …We can vote on this but the higher zil staking period will allow the person to pay off loan from the staked rewards itself through a smart contract …I believe any evolved society or culture in history has worked best where people know the right thing to do through self governance…We will have those that disagree and thats fine .Thats why we can have two Governance models .
This will also add stability in prices and increase the average of the staking period …as some will do it for 1-3 years through the self goverenance while others will be subjected to the community based voting periods
Can the chain track how long a token been stacked. If can be tracked, may be can use airdrop or devidend model to differentiate stacking APY. Also, how to reward the active participate voter.
Modification and contract migration is definitely needed. Imagine the case where users stake on days 1, 2, and 3. Then we need to individually track it all stake deposit. It definitely adds to the complexity of contract
In phase 1 of the staking contract, we went for a cleaner and simpler approach.
Happy to hear any detailed idea on how such a mechanism can be implemented. Also, how should the % be like eg. allocation of rewards.
Also, looking at the APY is around 15%, what is the ideal % APY and ideal lock-up period. If based on current reward, Such mechanism can tweak the range of rewards to be become say (for example) 10-20%. So the question is, will community members willing to say increase the lock-up by 2x or 3x longer for maybe 1-5% more rewards?
Exponential rewards calculated between 6 months - 3 years is very doable and feels like a standard BOND type asset. Also, given every crypto cycle is around 3-4 years.
The questions you posed are all valid and would need to be worked out…Sounds like you are part of the development team :)…Just to let you know there is a large part of the community not all but a large part that would not mind staking for longer periods…and if we can differentiate or incentivize that whether its through APY% itself or something else needs to be looked at …if we can motivate the community to stake for longer periods through an incentive mechanism it will reflect in price…this will directly increase market cap…greater investments and market reach .
lets say i stake for 3 years…as a result I could accrue a slightly higher stake reward like you suggested + an NFT in proportion to the staked amount…which at the end of the lock up period could be traded…just thinking out aloud here…maynot be the way…but the idea being an incentive for the time
As a developer you know what can be done and what cant or simply wont make sense…I guess what I am trying to say is to give a reason to the zil community the benefits of long term HODL
by incentivising the mechanism of staking by involving time as an additional element…in its absence
we leave the door wide open…if we are able to do this we will add value over time…if your team still feels its not viable …well I rest my case…but totally excited about the community we have here
I think it will eventually be too long, but for this current phase while gZil is being minted I think its just about right. After the minting is done, I wouldn’t mind it being reduced afterwards, as the value of the reward is essentially halved at current gZil token price once it no longer is received.
Personally, and I’m probably the minority here, but I love it simple. Introducing tiers and other perks and logic just adds a layer of unnecessary complexity to staking that has to be managed, tweaked, and worked around by everyone from wallets to exchanges. Cool features can be enticing, but there’s already a boatload of chains out there doing all sorts of gimmicky tricks. Some work well, but some fall flat on their face and people dump it and never come back. There is something to be said about bulletproof simplicity. Leave the free gift cards and perks up to secondary protocols. On the base project, less is more.
I am with you too. I like the simple idea. It help with adoptions. It is easy to understand and stake There is no need to punch the number into the calculator to decide what is best APY and etc. Contract wise, it is simpler and less prone to bugs or corner-cases.
I believe of one the current strong point of the existing staking program is how easy is it to understand and use it (relatively to other project staking programs). This has definitely helped in the adoption of staking. For instance, I really dislike the gauge system in https://www.curve.fi/. It is really overly complicated and let’s user make a really really tough choice. The lack of a good UI to visualize the reward make it worse. I end up giving it up and choose not to use it.
This said our staking program needs to advance and mature over time. We will need to keep building staking as a product and unlock new use cases for it. I still think we still need to keep things simple and don’t force users into frustration when deciding which parameters to go to. The new addition feature should give user a few more options. I am not in favor of an exponential curve where the user needs to calculate and key in the parameters. That will deter adoption. As a community, we can collectively decide on the various options available. As in such a case, calculator or UI also need to be refined to help user understand these new options
Also beyond all these bonding period and reward addition/adjustment, we should brainstorm what new use cases can we do?
Digital identity / identity services is a use case that could get some traction. In this case, individuals own and control their personal data. Essentially the user controls their data, say in a Zilliqa Identity Account, and it’s verified by 3rd parties.
Not with you on 1st point, I think longer unbonding period adds a level of stability to price with a clearer, are you with us or not as a community element, that has benefited Zilliqa this far.
But 2nd point right on. Gimmicky things degrade network reputation from my standpoint.
Simplicity, Usability, with clear regular benefits cannot be beat
The only argument I have for a shorter unbonding period, is because there exists a sweet spot between duration and willingness. Right now, its very lucrative. I agree with the “with us or not” point, however this is a blockchain market, and lets face it, it is so early in adoption with so many projects, that maybe 20% are in any project simply for the technology. Until the mindset evolves to 1 zil=1 zil, and not sats or fiat as the majority, and a project’s primary value generation is via implementation, not speculation of the token itself, there always will be fierce competition for new money coming into this space. Zilliqa’s staking model as it stands today is on that sweet spot of generating lucrative returns vs. limiting a speculator’s liquidity. Swinging much to either end results in high volatility, or decrease in market cap. The Zilliqa team has a finger on the pulse on this, evident by the efforts to establish a robust governance system that can allow for rapid adaptation to changing market dynamics. This governance is critical for, and directly linked to the efficacy of the staking model. Lowering the unbonding period may not be the best idea now or later, it does however require the need to allow for quick criticism and cautious alteration.
It’s an interesting idea, but I think we should keep the current Zilliqa staking APY model. Maybe this is a great proposal for Pillar protocol where we can have a $bzil at a higher rate if we provide zilliqa liquidity for a long term.
The complexity issue is important, both from a user perspective and from the perspective of a bug-free staking contract.
Maybe one way to proceed, if the community is interested in a higher APY for long-term hodlers, is a secondary “longstake” pool, with e.g. a 1-year unbonding period and 2x the reward per day as compared to the ordinary “stake” pool. That’s relatively simple to understand from a user’s perspective – a much higher APY but at the cost of much lower liquidity – and relatively easy to code in the smart contract (when calculating rewards, count the longstake pool as double size).
Given the very limited liquidity, it wouldn’t surprise me if only 1/4 of the current stake pool was willing to longstake. Certainly I wouldn’t be willing to do it with all of my tokens, but perhaps I would with a portion.
I suppose the reverse is also true: there could be a “shortstake” pool with an unbonding period of 3 days and 1/5 of the reward for the “stake” pool. That would give users flexibility. Probably most individuals would not stake in the shortstake pool, but perhaps some institutions might (e.g. some exchanges that need to process withdrawals but also have a steady stream of deposits, resulting in a fairly steady pool of tokens that could be staked if liquidity was not too bad).