I would love it if StormX could have staking rewards rates based on how long you LOCK. I think someone willing to lock for 6 months to multiple years should get a higher yield than someone who wants to lock for a couple months. This is becoming the more popular way. To reward the long term HODLERS. Also I wish there was an AUTO RE-STAKE FEATURE. This means the rewards just get added to the principal automatically. I understand with autostake, a portion of the rewards would have to be subtracted for fees. I love auto restaking that we have with projects like Tezos, Solana and Polkadot. For people who are holding long term and have full time jobs it makes a lot of sense. 
2 Likes
I think this is a good suggestion. Both the staking term length bonuses and also if restaking is a possible feature. IDK how feasible this is from a dev/engineering standpoint, but once the swap is done and the new staking rate is established as well as the new fee structure for early withdraws, perhaps this is something we can explore with the team to see if these are viable features we as a community might be able to discuss, develop and vote on.
2 Likes
Its defintly doable. Mamy erc20 tolens have length bonuses and auto restake stuff. Urus token does it well. They do this by havign a staking allocstion. Say, 500k tokens. And when a user stakes 100,000 tokens for 5 years at 50% apr it compounds it once per year or aomwthing like that.
It would look like this. User stakes100k for 5 years.
Contract does math
100k x1.5 = 150k
150kx 1.5 = 225k
225k x 1.5 = 337.5k
337.5k x 1.5 = 506,250
506.25k x 1.5 = 759,375
Essentially when the user locks for 5 years at 50%, the pool of 500m tokens has a obligation or deduction into a seperate contract ot even remains internally, if final amount minus priniple . Resulting in a lock uo if 659,375 tokens
This model IS SUPER PREFFERED. You csn incoporate slashing and slashing reduction in multiple ways. Thus icnrease the teams revenue via slashing increases, and also incrwaing token lockup, thus removing liquidity (good thing)
This honestly needs to be looked into properly becuade it makes no sense to have it done the way it is currently
2 Likes
If Alex is on the next gov call, I’d like to see if he can provide feedback into the feasibility of something like this for StormX. Make sure it wouldn’t be tons of work on the team side… and other things like that
3 Likes
So what do people think about pursuing this kind of staking setup? Should we ask for the team to devote some resources to develop this as a proposal after the token swap is completed?
1 Like
Only issue I can see with restaking isn’t the fee (It’s established we’ll have to have a fee) but the unpredictable nature of the fee.
Gas fees now are like a dollar or so to stake (very low) but during the bull market, it went up to crazy amounts (Talking $30-$50, even saw it at $90 at times) - If we enable auto-staking, we shouldn’t do it in a way that says “Will restake, no matter the fee” especially if years is viable as a time period. Next bull market in however many years will jack that up to the point people will reconsider whether the fee is worth it.
I am a fan of locked staking, with longer times having a higher yield. The staking we have now doesn’t really have much risk, besides a couple of dollars (which you could make back, if you have the right amount of tokens)
1 Like
Perhaps users can enable an auto-staking fee limit? (In $ or ETH)
Just something like “If gas fees exceed $X, skip this auto restake until the next time period” (Whether it be weekly, bi-weekly, monthly)
I think we can opt in for auto-restaking or not at our own risk on the fees. The long term rate is what I am more interested in than anything else. If we commit to 6 months to multiple years the rates should reflect. It was sad for me to watch staking go from 12.5% to 6.5% within approximately a year. This was an idea to get the rate back up for the long term HODLERS!
I really like the idea of higher rates for long term holders. It could still be a case of: You can still unstake despite your term length, it’s just that you take a larger portion of a haircut in doing so. So right now it’s 10%. For instance, if you initially set a lock-in term for 6 months, then the fee for an early unstake could increase to 30% (just an example).
It means it still lets the user have full control of their tokens if they really need them anytime during the term.
Auto-staking sounds great, and perhaps you could be able to split the yield (50% staked and 50% goes to your wallet unstaked) every 2 weeks, month, 2 months etc.
1 Like
I think we should put the auto staking into another discussion/topic, just to not get lost down that amazing rabbit hole.
I agree with your other sentiments.
Lock periods = more apy
Biggers locks = more apy
Full access to funds always (withdrawls) = user freedom
Haircuts/slashing for user who exit early = less sell pressure, potential revnue stream.
If this is the avenue we take, i believe there is room to incorporate the token membership model.
I.e if a user is 50% way completed a 12 month lock up, and then chooses to withdraw,
this is what happens to different member tiers;
Bronze: 10% princinple haircut, 75% rewards
haircut
Silver: 8% principle haircut, 65% rewards haircut
Gold: 7.5% principle haircut, 55% rewards haircut
Platinum: 4.5-6% principle haircut , 35-45% reward haircut
Diamond : 2-4% principle haircut, 20-30% reward haircut
(this is an example, numbers would change)
The reason why diamomd and platinum are so much better is a strong motivation to upgrade to those tiers. Which in turn creates value for the token. Which is the end goals always
Edit: I should add that i think the principle and rewards haircuts need a specific discussion about whete that money goes. Very important. I strongly believe the token shouldnt go SOLELY to the team.
Staking, dividend, shopping rewards etc
I agree that staking should offer a sliding scale of rewards based upon the lock up period. I’m not sure I like higher rewards for higher membership tiers however. I feel like Diamond members get a lot of great benefits already. Perhaps you could offer tiered benefits for unlocking early, but I think offering a higher staking rate is a little too generous. I’ve seen platforms offer a sliding scale of 5% for a weekly lockup all the way up to 15% for a 365 day lockup. That spread might be too high on the back end, but what about 12% for a 365 day lockup? IDK, would anyone have interest in scheduling a discussion off Discourse to maybe put together a proposal that the team could review, provide feedback on and we could respond to? I’d really like to see if we can come up with something that could be scrutinized by the team.
Based upon the last gov call… we decided that the best thing for now would be for a team of community members to come together and lay out the general framework for what varied staking rates/terms might look like. It would be helpful to get the ball rolling by formalize a first basic proposal for the team to review and they could comment on feasibility of the proposal and then once the feasibility is ironed out, the proposal team could work on collaborating with the team to finalize the details/specifics for the proposal. The ideal outcome would be that something could be presented for a community vote on the final proposal. I would be on the proposal team to act as an intermediary for the community to the team, but I would love to see jgb be a part of the proposal team as well as other community members who could help contribute ideas and even proposal drafting capabilities. If anyone is interested in being a part of the proposal team, please let me know here or on Discord.
1 Like
I will write something up tommorow or friday. Idk if it will be proposal grade quality.
We need the community to agree on things before we can go that far.
Things we need to consider:
1.Auto restaking
2.Payout periods
3.Lockup increase/periods
4. Membership tier integration(s)
5. Slashing structure / withdrawl fees.
6. LP staking boosts
7. Maximum rates for staking
I dont think any formal proposal can be made without atleast heavily understanding and delinerating on all of those points. Obviously i will have to clarify what i mean for each point in a follow up post or in the proposal.
For reference;
1.Auto restaking
2.Payout periods
3.Lockup increase/periods
4. Membership tier integration(s)
5. Slashing structure / withdrawl fees.
6. LP staking boosts
7. Maximum rates for staking
What we should know or consider/decide.
-
Auto restaking; this could be made a membership tier thing (maybe), could be a fee paid at beggining of stake, or could just be a free thing. If it costs the team extra gas or something, we would need to decide how often it restakes automatically.
-
If the payout (gas) is still done by the team, should we adjust it to be less frequent to help reduce gas costs? Do we include an ability to claim rewarda early with a fee? (Also user pays gas for claim)
-
If the above is all general staking with no lock up, then we could also introduce lock periods. Do we allow rewards to be claimed even thougu principle is locked? Or are rewards + principle locked until the end? What periods do we set up?
Or do we make it a custom lock up periods (i have an exmaple, ask if need) -
Do we make certain membership tiers have reduce lock times, increases staking apr, more free withdrawls? What other avenues can we come up with to build membership tier incentives.
-
If a user exits a stake early (during a lock-up), what %s do we slash. How often does the % re-adjust. Basicslly how close you are to finishing the lock up, could reduce the amount of slashing that would occur. At what point durong the lock up do we only slash rewards?
-
If a user has a LP position, should the staking contract recognize that, and boost the apr of staking? How is this calculated. Maybe for every 1 dollar staked you need 2 dollars in LP to acheieve the boost.
7.with everything said above, it would be a complex system for staking. We would need to know the maximum amount of return that could be done and how to adjuat the lock up period rewards accordingly.
Theres some more infromarion.
Lots to decide. Not all of it needs to be included.
Please, when commenting on particular subsections, refrence which subsection (i.e 1, 2, 3 etc) thanks!
We didn’t get any response on Discord from people wanting to be on the team developing this proposal, but I want to keep it going. Do you mind if I put together a google doc draft of a proposal and we can use that to refine the proposal? Might also be a little easier if we have something to show other community members so they can review/comment/contribute in the process of getting to a formal proposal. I’ll use your last Discourse post as a framework. Does that work for you jgb?
1 Like
Works great for me. Feel free to make any edits, or additions you feel fit. Im not expert, and i appreciate your opinion.
Just throwing this out there, but i believe auto restaking (compounding) shouls only be avaiable for locked up tokens. Seems like a bonus for the the users willing to lock tokens.
A potential solution for the auto restaking gas probelm, or just generalized withdrawl fees is below.
We would need to Determine how many tokens are allocated to staking rewards. If a user locks in a stake of 50,000 tokens for 1 year at an apy of 10%
The team or smart contract allocated the staked rewars tokens (5,000). This guarentees anyone who locks get there rewards no matrer what.
But also, lets users see the reward pool left of tokens.
This allows for slashing of rewards very easily as they are only given at end of contract.
Given timeframes reduce principle slashing
1% progress in staking contract is 99% slash
2% progress in staming contract is 98% slash
3% is 97% slash
25% is 75% slash
99% is 1% slash.
This is more dynamic and provides a slash no mattter what.
This allows for more predicatable staking payouts from the treasury.
This would only be for lock period and potentially auto compounds.
That way there is no gas compounding fees but its all just pre calcuated before hand. One start stake fee, one withdraw fee. Thats it!