✳️ dApp Staking Reset Mechanism

[you425]

I can agree with you on many things.

• Manual staking resets are likely to confuse stakers because the timing of staking release is unpredictable, and there is a high probability of dissatisfaction.
• Bonus reward rules also need to be flexible. This has been exchanged on Github, but implementation has not yet been completed.dAppStaking - Bonus rewards mechanism rework · Issue #1379 · AstarNetwork/Astar · GitHub

@Mouthmouth68

dApps should provide regular public updates on their progress. For dApps, this should include:

Regarding progress reports, I think this should be done in the Portal, not in the Forum. If there are many active projects, discussions that should be in the Forum may drift away and become uncontrollable. Therefore, I propose that a section be added to each project page in the Portal to provide activity reports. This will also make it easier to see which projects to support from Portal.
Reporting should be done in the first week of each month and the dApps owner will leave a transaction with the report. If no reporting is done, the following penalties will be applied (automatically).

• 1st stage: 33% cut in rewards
• 2nd stage: 66% cut in rewards
• 3rd stage: Delist

Even when a penalty has been incurred, a report can be made to restore the status to one of the previous stages.
It would be even better if the status of reporting and penalties could be easily understood by icons in the dApps list.

However, the drawback is that this would require a certain amount of development cost.

@Mouthmouth68

maximizing number of dApp supported instead of having just few blackhorses by :
– limiting maximum amount staked per user on each dApp

I disagree with you on this. Depending on the limit on the maximum number, it could be a burden on operations, as exchanges like Binance, for example, use dApp Staking. Also, the number of dApps that can be staked is limited to 16, which could also be a problem.

@Mouthmouth68

giving an APY bonus to stakers for staking on emerging dApp and/or various dApp category and/or selected dApp which align with Ecosystem current need.

Interesting proposal, but may be difficult to justify; it might be interesting to do something like Curve’s Gauge ballot with a boost to the incentive in the form of a Subsquare voting.

@Mouthmouth68

It may however increase a bit current inflation since more projects will be able to reach T4 & T3. But IMO it is necessary if we do not want to transform dApp staking in a ghost town just for the sake of low inflation.

T3 and T4 (especially T4) will only be a small part of the inflation and will not have a significant impact. I suggest adjusting the slots and increasing the amount of reward for T4. I’m posting the adjustments I proposed earlier here (they are still the same numbers as before, so please use them as a reference only).

dApp staking v3 - tier algorithm adjustment proosal

I certainly like the idea of changing the Tier setting in the first place. However, my suggestion was to make the rewards on the way from the current tier to the next tier as linear as possible. The current implementation does not do that (of course, if the community thinks this is fine, this is fine too). Why should we not set different percentages? I think the most appropriate thing to do is to change both the Tier parameters and the percentages of ranks per Tier. As a concrete example, h…

@Mouthmouth68

Regarding your scenario 3, we also need to consider dApps which provide usefull tools for the Eco with the mindset of being a “free to use” dApp. dApp staking should serve to purpose too to minimaly cover infrastructure expense if completed and not further update is planned and financial support if tools are still in improvment process.

I agree with you on this. It makes sense to support projects that are a public good with dApp Staking.