[DRAFT] SIP-30: Concentrating staking revenues

I have just published a draft SIP on GitHub for review:

SIP-30: Concentrating staking revenues

I welcome comments/questions either here or on GitHub!

9 Likes

Short and sweet. Looks like what was discussed in the forums and on the community call

1 Like

Sorry if my understanding is wrong but I couldn’t find the relevant discussion on discord but what it seems is that this SIP proposes that if I staked only for 1 month and after contract expired kept the stake I get part of fees but I get nothing if I staked money in SOV for 3 years (hence still under vesting contract)?

No, that’s not right Judicandus.

Through this SIP, all the staking rewards will from now on be divided only among VOLUNTARY stakers who have CHOSEN to lock up their PREVIOUSLY UNLOCKED (vested) SOV in the staking contract.

Rather than still locked (unvested) SOV from seed/founders/partners also receiving staking rewards, as is currently accidentally the case.

This is a very important correction, and way overdue. Get it done ASAP.

5 Likes

Yes. To be crystal clear here, this SIP is saying that today, protocol revenues are divided among two categories of stakers: those with SOV locked in a vesting contract, and those with SOV not locked in a vesting contract.

  1. Stakers who likely do have some portion of staked SOV locked in a vesting contract:
  • Genesis participants
  • Other early purchasers
  • Team members
  • Liquidity mining LPs
  1. Stakers who do not have some or all of their staked SOV locked in a vesting contract:
  • Origins participants
  • Any staked SOV that was bought on the open market
  • Any staked SOV that was subject to vesting but the vesting period has passed

If this SIP is passed, the revenues will be divided only among SOV stake in the second category.

A note on terminology, because it has come up a few times: There has been some debate over what to call stakers whose staked SOV is not encumbered by a vesting contract. “Voluntary stakers” has been suggested however this isn’t accurate since unless some stakers out there had a gun to their head when they bought/staked SOV then everyone here is a voluntary staker because they voluntarily entered into whatever smart contract caused their SOV to become encumbered by a vesting contract. “Liquid stakers” has also been suggested however this does not capture very well the fact that early unstaking comes with a penalty that can be quite hefty, so the stake is (by design) not actually very liquid.

I settled on the term “fully-vested stakers” because this is the technical term for an asset that is not encumbered by the terms of a vesting contract, including an asset that never was encumbered by a vesting contract as well as an asset that originally was encumbered by a vesting contract but no longer is. This may be a new term for folks coming into the community, but I think it’ll be easy to pick up on and when compared to the alternatives I believe most will see this as the more suitable term to use.

4 Likes

It’s clear now. Will vote. Thank you.

Honestly fully-vested is a little confusing (especially for the never vested) and has no ring to it. Sure newbies can take the extra 5 minutes and figure it out, but it just sounds too technical and confusing at first glance, especially for never-vested folks. How about something in the range of pure stakers?

1 Like