What do you mean with Lockdown - a “hard” staking with a frontrun commitment to lockdown the tokens for x amount of time, or a “free” staking with an increase if tokens are not touched for x amount, but bonus going to zero if moved?
The first “hard” lock variante would be a No-vote, the second a yes from my part.
Some of the WR-teams suggested to cap the bonus increase at 15%, maybe your 25% is a bit too much to be economically feasable, even though, that 30 month lock is a hard commitment to the platform.
Maybe just stop increasing after 18 months - I mean, I think 15% bonus is enough to let people rest their token, if moving even a single one resets everything to zero.
Also, 18 months are a long time and if we see, that the bonus fee are to low, or whatever, we can just vote to prolong/increase, but also decrease the values if needed. So, I would suggest to start out more conservative and only with the first 18 months of your suggested bonus amount.
I dont understand the “only adda generated after v2” part. Could you give me some context on this sentence?
I mean, we are talking for additional WRT rewards, what does the ADA generated to do with this, and why this V2 at all?
Anyway, Im happy, that you take the initiative and creates a proposal. Most of the current DAO stuff seems a bit sleepy
Ah, ok you were refering the Ada distribution proposal, gotcha.
I dislike hard locks - why not make it “soft” locked with giving people an increase of bonus rewards the longer the tokens lay down, instead of an upfront commitment?
Well, you changed the bonus percentage increase, but a teammember said, he would advice against going above 15% - so why would you not follow his advice?
Is there a reason for going higher just so for going higher?
Just asking, I mean proposal are a free-for-all anyway, but Im not sure, if I would vote YES on the scetched one we are discussig right now.
I would want a “soft” lock - as long, as you dont harvest your rewards, they do generate a bonus reward over time up to 15% in a linear fassion and reset to 0% bonus the moment, they are moved.
Or does my proposed changes have problems I dont see?
Advantages in my book are:
take the advice of a teammember into consideration, to not empty the treasury too far (15% max)
Give a more flexible option for people to hodl, like ADA does with its staking. People will still be disadviced to just harvest and dumb and be rewarded into tokens, while still are flexible, if need to - which would improve WRT quality in my eyes.
The block would be soft indefinitely, so that the reward coefficients increase as the age of the block increases and these coefficients would affect both the WRT and ADA rewards.
Lockdown 3 months (X 1,05 increase in WRT + X 3 in ADA
Lockdown 6 months X 1,10 increase in WRT + X 5 in ADA
Lockdown 9 months X 1,15 increase in WRT + X 7 in ADA
Lockdown 12 months X 1,20 increase in WRT + X 10 in ADA
I think you’re going to have to vote yes on my proposal.
I just want to flag these numbers you shared as the ones to consider for the timed lock-in for WRT. Please allow me to share a quick recap here. As discussed this model would closely follow the Liqwid model where the bonus increases with the amount of time deposited, allows withdrawals but resets the bonus if one does withdraw. I still imagine that a hardlock timed deposited would be technically easier to implement but I will leave that for the dev team to consider. The latest suggested model and numbers from TNT:
Lockdown 3 months (X 1,05 increase in WRT + X 3 in ADA
Lockdown 6 months X 1,10 increase in WRT + X 5 in ADA
Lockdown 9 months X 1,15 increase in WRT + X 7 in ADA
Lockdown 12 months X 1,20 increase in WRT + X 10 in ADA
We discussed this outside of the forum and agreed this would be a good time for Wingriders team input. This model is interesting, but can we fit it in with the existing tokenomics and farming emission is a good question.
@techrider I know you were following this discussion a while back and gave some great insight on it in this reply mentioning that from a UX perspective it would be something to implement within the existing boosting vault structure, and that careful consideration needs to be taken to cap the bonus at a sustainable level: Additional WRT Reward for Long-term Stakers/Farmers - #14 by techrider
is there someone able to review these numbers, and see if there is a way to make this work? If not, would there be a counter suggestion? Obviously from both team and community perspective the aim is to have a net positive effect, encouraging longer term deposits.
It seems that team hasn’t had any bandwidth to review this yet? @techrider
the question now is whether the latest suggested numbers and implementation plan from community discussion would work?
p.s something that was noted earlier was the bonus rewards including Ada on top of the WRT. Not sure if this is feasible as currently the boosting vault only produces WRT. so this might have to be left out. But the idea still remains the same where you’d get additional rewards from boosting vault dependent on how long you keep your deposit in place.
As it was outlined previously, adjusting the mechanics and maths of WRT Boosting Vault, to incentivize the long-term holders is feasible. In order to minimize the impact on the tokenomics and sell pressure, here are suggested lower values:
Lockdown 3 months X 1,05 increase in WRT
Lockdown 6 months X 1,08 increase in WRT
Lockdown 9 months X 1,12 increase in WRT
Lockdown 12 months X 1,16 increase in WRT
Note that any direct incentives in ADA for WRT holders are not possible from regulatory compliance perspective, as it would constitute the WRT token a security. Any such proposal would have to be declined.
