For those whose who prefers visual than texts (my brain doesn’t work in texts…!) I made these examples. (Thanks Dino for the help!!)
So Voting period pool has all B&E rewards (currently 20% of inflation as well as Stakers rewards (currently 10++ dynamic) which is going to be big:) Stakers would not want to miss this hence I can hope active users to come back for nominating every cycle. Projects can be creative to attract users to nominate to the project which creates encouragements in the communities.
let me address some of your points together since there’s a lot of overlap.
Length Of The Periods
The main purpose of dApps Staking is to provide projects with some basic income (rewards). The design should be centered around that, while in the process maximizing stakers earnings and incentivizing them to participate.
The ratio between the two periods is important, for multiple reasons (of equal importance):
During voting period extra rewards are accumulated which provide an incentive for active stakers
During build & earn period, dApps (or developers) are able to earn rewards
Off-chain, projects usually have some roadmaps and commit what to deliver quarterly (Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4)
Having a ratio between voting and B&E 1 : 3 would mean projects earn very little compared to stakers since 25% of the time they wouldn’t be earning anything. And extra rewards would be way too high.
Staking Choice Fatigue
This is personal, as it’s clear from you two .
There are protocols which allow you to stake and forget (one is called dApps Staking v2 ) and those might look more lucrative to stakers who prefer more passive approach. This isn’t a major factor, imo, but it is still a factor.
Projects and our team will have to do their best to provide you users, with best UX possible - you must be able to clearly see what projects are available, their history, marketing campaigns, etc.
Categories
I agree categories are important - but what is “fair”?
Tier system should already ensure that a single single project doesn’t take away too much from the reward pool. Personally I see adding categories as further optimization.
Defining tiers and tier parameters will be a challenge in itself.
Adding categories into the mix makes it exponentially more difficult to design system and choose params.
(haven’t read this article in particular but it should explain the point I’m trying to make)
Personally, I don’t see a problem if DeFi gets into tier 1. If they bring in most of the TVL, shouldn’t they be rewarded the most?
Have u considered using another methodology, like providing a fixed of rewards (ie 5% apy) to “passive” users who lock their tokens but not nominate dapps on a regular basis?
It’s not possible to provide fixed APY since the inflation would have to scale with TVL which is basically impossible. Please check this doc page for more info.
I don’t think it would be a good developpment if people just become lazy and just restack on the same Dapp all the time - not by interest and support but by lack of time/motivation.
How can we decide whether restaking on the same dApp is support or laziness?
Maybe an option to vote for the same DApp for 2 to 3 cycles could be offered in exchange for shorter cycle (1-2 month per cycle) AND/OR an option to be exempted of voting if they stack on Astar Core Contributors DApp for exemple (to support the Astr network in general). It could be used as a tool to the DApp teams to visualize the amount of active supporter rather than the mix with the “lazy restacker”
voting and staking are the same thing.
Having one dApp superior to other is not good because then it is clear on which dApp everyone should stake to maximize rewards.
It would be awesome to have on the dapps detail page, inside the portal on the dapps list, more information such as: changelog, milestones achieved and roadmap.
That information would be updated by the dapps owners and it would provide nice information for the stakers to chose who to delegate to.
This comment is more directed toward Shiden because, well, I own mostly SDN and see it as more cutting edge. We ought to really be pushing to create more developers with ink!/WASM skills. There should be a Tier(s) for ink!/WASM students who don’t necessarily have a functioning dApp yet, just beginning their journey but have demonstrated an interest. Perhaps as a possible next step for people in the technical ambassador program, but that doesn’t have to be the only route. Show &tell us what they’ve done in the ambassador program (or elsewhere) to get 2 months of funding. Then show&tell us every 2 months how they are progressing with learning, designing, building something interesting. This way it would be possible to receive funding through the whole learning and building process. This should be prioritized over EVM copy pasta stuff.
I don’t like that stakers can un-stake during the B&E period. It’s not fair for learners/builders who could find their income unexpectedly cut-off when they were baking on 2-months of funding. Students may have limited resources and their is already enough volatility in the price. A 2-month commitment is not unreasonable.
Hi everyone and thank you for your contributions!
After reading the proposal for v3 for dapp staking I have a question: I would like to support more dApps by staking with them but can’t always put in the 500ASTR needed. Is there a plan to lower the min. amount? If there would be no limit to the downside, then I’d always claim and instead of auto-restaking would contribute elsewhere.
I recently joined the community and I’m just beginning to discover all that the Astar project offers. Given my current knowledge, it would not be reasonable to pretend to give an honest opinion on this proposal because it would not be based on much.
However, what I believe is that in the building/development phase of a projet as we are now, it is essential to keep maximum flexibility in order to adapt to the evolution of market and therefore, I think that this proposal goes in this direction.
Thanks to @sota and the whole team for your work, I wish you the best for 2023 and I look forward to following this exciting project.
It would be awesome to have on the dapps detail page, inside the portal on the dapps list, more information such as: changelog, milestones achieved and roadmap.
UI will definitely evolve to support new features. Having an easy way to track progress (& all related activities) will be on the table.
There should be a Tier(s) for ink!/WASM students who don’t necessarily have a functioning dApp yet, just beginning their journey but have demonstrated an interest.
It’s a nice proposal but we cannot have something like this as part of core protocol (see my previous messages about not favoring any dApps). However, a WASM dApp could be built around this use case and registered for dApps staking . Instead of rewards going to devs, they could go towards ink!/WASM students as you call them.
The core protocol will provide whitelisting (see my explanation in the first post), and it could be used to put such dApp into a higher tier (if community agrees).
Such dApp can be designed & implemented outside of Astar core team though
I don’t like that stakers can un-stake during the B&E period. It’s not fair for learners/builders who could find their income unexpectedly cut-off when they were baking on 2-months of funding. Students may have limited resources and their is already enough volatility in the price. A 2-month commitment is not unreasonable.
There is also the other side where a project could turn out to be a scam (or just bad) and stakers want to move away from it.
There are rewards to incentivize against unstaking during build&earn period so there’s that.
We’ll see how the new dApps staking behaves on Shiden and we can adjust accordingly.
@Leonie
We can see about lowering this number in the future.
However, keep in mind that if minimum staking amount is too small, then the reward you get might actually be lower than the fee you’ve spent to claim it.
I think we can change & optimize this with dApps staking v3 since we could just put a requirement on the minimum locked amount, instead of staked as it is today. We’ll have to see how the final design looks like.
Tier system will lead to a lot of debates between dApp builder because it’s hard to equate different dApps. For example, if the number of iterations with smart contracts is the criteria, AMMs will get an advantage etc.Also, we should take in mind new types of dApps which will appear in the future and they could present brand new use cases and it will need to appreciate them with the completely new metrics.
In this case, maybe it’s better to use the number of votings itself because basically this is the proxy for a big number of on-chain and off-chain metrics such as TVL, active users, roadmap progress, community engagement etc. etc. The dApp with good performance will get more votes.
According to my observations of the burnings events (SDN burning, for example) they don’t lead to better price performance in a long-term. Sometimes in a short term and only in case of announcements of the burnings. “Quite” burnings have no effects almost always. So if the burnings don’t lead to the considerable decrease of inflation or even to deflation, they have not a lot of sense.
From my point is better to reward active users and distribute the undistributed rewards among the remaining stackers. In this case, it’s possible to introduce normal APR and APR for the active users. This will attract more users and stimulate to vote for dApps, gov, proposals etc.
@igporoshin
If you used # of votes as a metric then you would need a registration of voters, otherwise someone could spam with many votes at a low amount of ASTR staked. But that’s a bit outside of this discussion imo.
I think we agree that tier sorting can work, but we will need to get creative on what metrics to use and test on Shiden first.
I like burning because it is an easy way to cleanup the additional ASTR and some marketing potential. Because these rewards may have limited impact long-term (whether they are burned or distributed to active members) I would pick whatever solution is easiest. To me burning is the easy answer.
The number of votes depends on the number of staked ASTR so the possibility of “spam” is limited. Also, I not sure that if a dApp team, for example, is voting for their dApp it’s a spam.
Other metrics have a lot of problems:
1. Easy to manipulate. These metrics could be easily manipulated by the teams: number of interactions with contracts, number of unique addresses (users), trading volume (AAMs and NFT marketplaces) etc. 2. Problem with TVL. It’s hard to manipulate with this metric, but it’s not so clear too. Easy example: Algem deposits liquidity to its partner dApps. So this is Algem’s TVL or TVL of its partners? Basically funds are counted twice in this case. 3. It’s hard to fairly equate different dApps. As I said earlier, this is the hardest question. For Algem the key metric is TVL (most likely), for TufyNFT - trading volume. So what is the fair way to equate TVL and NFT trading volume? Need to find the answer if these Dapps both are going to be included in the Tier 1 for example. 4. We don’t know exactly which dApp will apear in future. New key metrics will appear with these dApps and we again return to the problem 3.
Taking these points in mind, it’s better to work with one general metric, which will be a proxy to the wide range of on-chain and off-chain metrics.This will help to avoid a lot of disputes between dApps teams and a lot of additional work for Astar Core.
Actually distributing rewards among the remaining users will have a marketing impact in a long-term because it will help to build strong core community and increase Astar on-chain metrics. For example, it’s possible to link these rewards not only with voting for dApps but with voting for on-chain governance proposals also. Pretty often reach a quorum in such votings it’s not so easy because users have not a lot of incentives to vote.
In the and other users will also become more active because they will want to get these additional rewards.
On the other hand, we have the burning. It’s hard to imagine the exact size of tokens to be burned, but even if this number is equal to 10-20% (~0.009% - 0.018% on the total supply) of the annual inflation, it’s still not a big deal in terms of supply pressure. It will not help to turn ASTR in the unstoppable skyrocket)
Hi @igporoshin,
thanks for taking the time to go through the proposal!
About your tier sorting concern, the reason why I’d like for this to be outside of the core protocol is purely technical. Having it in such way allows us to experiment with different tier sorts in the future.
During the discussions both inside and outside of the team, people suggested they’d like the metric to account for gas usage, active users, etc. I see lots of problems with those approaches (my arguments were same as yours actually ) however I’d like us to be open for new metrics in the future. Who knows what might come up.
Initially though, it will be votes, very similar to how it works today.
My view (and hope) is that this will constitute an incredibly small amount of the rewards. I think if we get to a point where 20% of rewards are never being claimed, we’ve done something extremely wrong .
For the unused tier rewards (if we’re also discussing those), I also hope that with time, it will come near to zero. This would mean we’re full of great dApps which are utilizing the system.
Therefore building something around unclaimed rewards isn’t something I see as feasible.
This is why I suggested burning. I don’t like the approach we have right now where there’s a feeling Block reward is **X** and we have to distribute everything to users (this is one of the problems being addressed by the tier system).
Rewarding governance voting is an interesting proposal but we shouldn’t make it part of the dApps staking protocol itself. Instead of burning, unused funds could be moved to treasury (or some other functionality).
I do agree with this since 10-20% is a lot. Especially if there are other burn mechanisms, total burn per year can amount to a lot, even making the chain deflationary at some points (but that is a discussion for another post ).
We’ll keep the suggestions in mind when doing the final design.
I don’t see a reason why this couldn’t be configurable. The solution doesn’t even have to be black & white, e.g. we could burn portion of it and move the remainder to treasury.
Thanks for the V3 suggestion!
I received it as the great competitiveness of dApps , who has a higher metabolism.
I have 3 questions.
・When do you plan to implement dAppsStaking V3?
・I would like to know the main points of the development part that will change the most in this implementation (off-chain part will be on-chain, etc.).
・While locking and staking are separated, the staking reward will be less than at V2 due to the lock reward.
Hello everyone, As a simple bettor, I welcome this proposal, avoiding the more technical explanation of the distribution of rewards. Marking the “problems” was surgical, making for me a total
Sense.
Here I left my positive opinion regarding the proposal, that the best be done, for the community.
I think even if a dApp doesn’t have a high tier, there should be a way for them to receive rewards if the dApp is used frequently. So I would also like to propose allocating a portion of the transaction fee to a registered dApp to be added to the dApps Staking reward pool for that dApp. This means we can distribute rewards without adding to the inflation, and dApps without a lot of staking activities can also get rewarded to an extent.
In that case, the transaction fee is too low to impact the developers. To have this solution, the new tokenomics that is currently being designed could increase those transaction costs.
I have read the proposal again and have two concerns about the loyalty rewards pool of the voting period.
As I understand it,no dApps Builders and no stakers receive rewards during the voting period, rewards are accumulated as Extra Rewards and distributed to loyal stakers.
I find this model unfair to dApps Builders as it means they will lose rewards during the voting period and I don’t quite understand why stakers should receive rewards that should be reserved for builders. The whole concept of dApp Staking is to financially support builders with a constant income, but receiving rewards only during the build&earn period makes this income non-constant.
Furthermore, this system will encourage stakers to nominate and stake on Tier1 dApps as these dApps will accumulate more Extra Rewards during the voting period due to their Tier and therefore stakers will receive more Extra Rewards than if they had nominated and staked on other Tiers.
I’d like to hear your opinion on this.
Will you also update this thread with the recent changes to the dApps Staking v3, as the information is different from Astar Tokenomics 2.0: A Dynamically Adjusted Inflation discussion. For example, the number of tiers, the number of slots per tier, the requirements for each tier, etc.
.
) and those might look more lucrative to stakers who prefer more passive approach. This isn’t a major factor, imo, but it is still a factor.
Loved it.
.
