With regards to voting power. This is also a bit unclear matter when it comes to regular Joes to understand, as e.g. the Fish airdrop, that was based on voluntary staked voting power and not vested voting power, so Im not saying i have a solution for what would be the best way to make things clearer for the hords, but i beleive that it would be benficial to get things a bit more clear and straight forward to avoid confusion with terminology.
Great to heat that the SIP will be put to a vote the next few days. About terminology, it doesnât really matter for this SIP of course; so perhaps we should move it to a new topic and let the SIP get on with it.
Still, itâs good to clean up terminology before it gets too entrenched (as it requires changing documentation etc). About your suggestion @light: I think going with âstakersâ and âvesting stakersâ creates ambiguity, given that people will be inclined to use the label âstakersâ for vesting stakers. If a SIP applies to âstakersâ it could be ambiguous whether this includes the vesting stakers or not.
We want two things for the terminology: (1) we need two specific terms, one that only applies to assets that are vesting and one that only applies to staked assets that are not vesting, and both terms should apply somewhat naturally and non-ambiguously. (2) personally, I think we should not be using âvestingâ at all, given that people tend to confuse it with vested (so this speaks against going with âvestingâ and ânon-vestingâ, etc.).
I still like âactive stakersâ versus âpassive stakersâ. Staking vesting assets is not âopting-outâ, or âinvoluntaryâ but itâs fairly naturally described as âpassiveâ. I also like it better than antonyms like âunlockedâ versus âlockedâ, âfrozenâ and âunfrozenâ. But I donât care so much about pushing the particular suggestion. My main point is just that we need a pair of contrary adjectives if we want to avoid ambiguity, and we should not use âvestingâ if we want to avoid the confusion that is sometimes generated by the current terminology.
Why dont we call them Sovestors. Sounds dumb but may catch on
1 Like
Although I donât agree on the âvesting stakersâ concept, stakers and vesting stakers is the simplest so far.
I am wondering thoughâŚ
Do these vesting stake holders earn monetary rewards from the platform for the vesting stake, like the stakers do?
I see the point of the coins being addressed as âstakedâ per contract terminology, however consider the definition:
" Staking is the process of delegating or locking up crypto holdings to earn rewards.
I donât think of voting power when I think of earning rewards, but I guess if that is considered a reward, maaaaybe. My view is that if there are no rewards being earned, it is just locking up crypto for a period of time.
I also do not see it this way. I donât think you intentionally staked by accepting vesting tokens âunless you were forced/coerced.â Some accept and receive SOV in a vesting contract which is locked up, whether their intent was to receive in that particular contract or not. Everyone is going to accept an offer for SOV in a vesting contract if the only options are to accept or deny the offer and get no SOV at all. Most would prob prefer to receive outright and NOT in the vesting contract, however this is a part of the contract parameters that cannot be avoided for particular individuals. This is not the same as intentionally staking to earn rewards (which I have only seen as monetary on crypto staking platforms).
Yes. In fact, the whole point of this SIP is to make it so that this is no longer the case!
Sure, but I still wouldnât say that these stakers are involuntarily staking. They chose to receive SOV that came with vesting terms attached, to me that means they are voluntarily staking their SOV.
I would oppose this motion.
I have my SOV tokens in various different chunks: some staked for the full term of three years, some locked in vesting contracts for up to 10 months, and some locked in LP contracts.
I would argue that those whose SOV are encumbered in vesting contracts are in fact active participants in the community, and have a genuine stake in the growth and development of the project, just as much as those who who are staked.
I appreciate that administering the programming is complex, but that does not justify depriving those with vesting tokens of the right to claim the rewards of their vesting.
I plan to vote against this proposal
1 Like
I think we should call it âsingle sided stakersâ
Exactly, the point of the SIP is that people holding vesting SOV should not receive the staking rewards as they are not effectively staking by definition. Their vesting SOV is the reward in itself, which they will receive at a later date when it comes into their full possession. Doesnât this further the point that their position is not really a stake for rewards?
Agree to disagree. I think the term staking is being used loosely in Sovryn. This leads to confusion, and some may want to be considered stakers to get rewards. However, they are not stakers if they do not meet the definition, and thatâs where the problem lies, in the current loose definition. Anyone who has genuine support for the Dapp, although greatly appreciated, cannot just be considered a staker. They must meet the requirements of being a staker by definition.
The only staking Iâve seen in the crypto reality is intentionally locking up coins/NFTs that are already fully vested (unconditional possession) for monetary rewards. Thatâs the only reason stakers get rewards, they give up the unconditionality of their possession. Vesting coin holders cannot intentionally give up unconditionality of their possession because they do not yet have unconditional possession. There is a difference between a locked vesting account and staking. Although SOV in a locked vesting account may have originally been called a stake, it is not by definition.
You can say they intentionally accepted SOV in a vesting account. But to say they intentionally staked SOV for rewards, SOV which would not come into their full possession until a later date, is a stretch.
I am not trying to hurt any feelings, and sure if everyone likes being titled as some form of staker, we can come up with different terms and definitions (hopefully they stay as simple and clear as possible). But IMO if we are going with clear logic and rationale, there are stakers and there are vesters.
2 Likes
This does not affect users providing liquidity in the AMM pools, I believe?
This SIP makes it so that STAKED SOV STILL IN A VESTING CONTRACT receives no protocol fee rewards. That refers to staked SOV from founders, early partners, and seed sale. I do not believe Reward SOV from providing liquidity currently counts as staked SOV in this sense, and does not accrue voting power and fee rewards. Right, @light ?
1 Like
I stand corrected then, maybe the vested LP rewards do also accrue fees and voting power right now.
The APYâs on LPâing are still attractive, that said. Itâs a decent opportunity whenever you expect a ranging market with little price divergence and therefore little impermanent loss.
The reason behind this change is the opposite of a greed play: itâs to make active, voluntary stakers whole. Early stakers:
- Faced huge losses from months of decrease in the SOV price.
- Faced a severe cut if they decided to unstake because of the price downtrend
- Received protocol fees that were a mere pittance, because trade volume was low plus a huge chunk of those fees unexpectedly went to passive, locked-up-in-a-vesting-contract stakers (the portion of stakers with vesting contracts is vastly larger than that of voluntary stakers, as much of the seed sale, partner and team token are in vesting contracts)
So, they were much worse off than those providing liquidity. This SIP is a sensible way to strike a balance between Staking and LPâing both being reasonable opportunities.
3 Likes
I thought that the reward for vested stakers was to come from voting and passive vested staking was to be discouraged?
Letâs try to put some numbers on this.
Before this SIP was approved, there were two main components to the value of liquidity mining rewards:
(1) The value of the SOV itself (accepting that this is measured as a discounted value due to the vesting contract)
(2) The value of the revenues earned from the SOV reward due to auto-staking in the vesting contract
What exactly is the value the LPs are losing from no longer having (2)? We can look backward so we donât have to try and predict the future. If this change had gone into effect in May, how much value per SOV earned in rewards would the LPs have lost?
1 Like
And remember LP earners, your return on investment (usually around 50%) is much higher than stakers, with the only condition being that your profits must be held in a vesting contract for 10 months right?
Stakers gain far less, an estimate for my own stake rewards is about 4.3% over the last 4 months, and that is after all of these protocol changes started happening, it was far less before. AND stakers choose to lock up their assets for 1, 2, or 3 years! I locked my SOV up for 3 YEARS to get that few percent I talked about.
So yea, I donât think this is a greed play by stakers, just a community effort to make it worthwhile to be a staker here on the SOV Dapp.
2 Likes
This was an anticipated and due proposal. So i am finally happy it came through.
This below is just an discuasion for the lingo.
If the vesting SOVs of the team members are also considered as staked then the term âStakeâ here means not only those who have visited âSovrynâ and clicked the stake button but also those SOVs that are locked up in vesting contacts.
I rather use the term âStakerâ for those who visit âSovrynâ and clicked stake button.
Even though this is my personal preference it is very difficult to make this or any other lingo change discussed in this section throughout the whole platform because, it will be a nightmare for the devs.
Almost all of the contracts have been named already and devs are very comfortable with it(i assume). If we make a change now it can lead to a lot of confusion for them to track problems from the front-end to back-end, and much more confusion and trouble if the name of the contracts itself are changed, problems like misplacing/misusing/misunderstanding contracts or codes which are already audited, all of which we should avoid at all cost. Security first(Sovryn audits every piece of code before putting it into the mainnet).
If there should be someone proposing new lingo then it should be those who are working directly with the back-end and the front-end of the dapp, -devs.
Yes, we can put our suggestions here because user feedback is something we should not turn our back on. Meanwhile until something solid comes along, we can come to consensus on a few lingo we can use to better communicate with others.
Nothing should be forced to be displayed on the front-end without hearing devs suggestions and concerns.
my thoughts exactly!
Staker - Someone that stakes vested tokens
Staker* - A staker that has staked a mix of vested and vesting.
Staker is the norm and Staker* is a staker that is subject to vesting terms so it is the exception or deviation from the norm.
But these two terms should not be forced into the language of the users but rather be left alone so that it is becoming an organic incorporation. In the begging the community that is in the know will have to be attentive with the new users so that the terms are understood.
I feel there is no need to over complicate these.
How about slashable sov?