Providing a Non-Custodial Unstaking Solution

Are you guys comfortable with the way staking and unstaking is currently handled? So, at the moment, you can have non-custodial membership benefits within the StormX ecosystem, you can be a rewards member simply by connecting your wallet to your account - no strings attached.

Staking however is very much custodial, but not in the way you might think.

In order to stake, you must have an account with a connected wallet. This part is simple, but now where it gets blurry with the custodial factor is when you want to unstake.

When you want to unstake, we have to make the assumption that is always accessible. If there is a nefarious actor - either inside StormX or somewhere else along the hosting route, then we are very much at the mercy of such an event never taking place - just so that we can unstake whenever we wish.

Alternatively, If StormX was to ever encounter immediate legal issues from the state that it’s established with, we might not be able to unstake until such an event was to ever be resolved (e.g Voyager)

We like to think that this form of pseudo-custody is trusted, but there literally is no other way to unstake.

I am wondering what the sentiment of this particular topic is with you all. There is potentially decentralised hosting solutions (InterPlanetaryFileSystem) that can provide a far more robust failsafe in the event that any of the above situations might occur.

Questions around IPFS

  • Could we let users choose where to stake (and unstake)? StormX hosted solution vs decentralised hosted solution.
  • Who pays for the hosting? / How much does it cost?
  • Who maintains and develops this solution?
  • Adding a failsafe for non payment of hosting fees.

Cant we just send a unstaking command to the contract? Even if all the websites and apps dont work, this should still work. Not famillar with the code.

Nope i was incorrect.

I really like this idea. Having all your marbles in one spot especially a custodial wallet would spell a disaster. It’s not like we’ve never seen this happen before. I would personally prefer the method we had prior to the token swap. At least that way I can be confident my tokens are safe in my cold storage wallet.

So I don’t think the staking wallet situation would change, as this is all part of the slashing fees to help sustain the treasury. That part is doing what was intended, I have tested it myself .

Now the part that should be non-custodial is the app itself. By the way, I don’t think we can call the staking app a true DApp at the moment either.

In light of recent events in crypto (FTX), where the majority believed the actor to be benign, turned out to not be the case. Proof of reserves on exchanges is one thing, but in this case, StormX have an obligation to ensure us that their staking app is truly decentralised. If it’s not, someone else will come along (a rival business model) and make a decentralised staking app, like with IPFS or similar as I mentioned above.

StormX need to spend time, when they are free, to plug this hole, as more times goes on this will be a larger concern as more users join up, or even pass us by as they decide against staking based on trust alone.

My first thought was that since STMX and its utility is tied to the app and the company, but rethinking that, it isn’t necessarily the case. We’ve seen VGX be something that has value and is still traded in spite of it being a utility token for a company that is in Ch. 11 bankruptcy. On some level there’s nothing stopping anyone from building utility on top of the STMX token so I do think it’d be something to look at where by the staking app is truly a dapp. In light of us having to wait currently for some feedback on community proposals, I’m going to see if we can get some brain space and thought from the team on whether this is something they’d be able to consider making changes to in the future.

1 Like