I understand. Not insisting on this point.
I can see the problems that would be caused by the obligation to claim the rewards within a certain period of time, but I have difficulties to see the benefits.
What kind of abuse are you thinking of?
Within the defined time limit of two Epochs, a user would have to claim every two months. Does this really help to define that a user is actively engaging in the protocol?
I really like the Fairdrop idea!
However you should not forget about $PSP stakers! Leaving your real supporters behind won’t be cool!
I totally agree with the idea to separate the different discussions.
This idea is very interesting.
Interesting idea but the different boosts are high. 10%, 15%,… until 35% may be more suitable.
I agree wit Dydymoon and Enerow, I don´t think this is necessary, more speculator.
I totally agree with that.
I have difficulties to see the benefits as well.
Even if the claiming process is going to happen in Ethereum mainnet, the transaction is unlikely to be very gas intensive, as it will be a simple claim function. We can see what the final gas cost is going to be, and if necessary, the rewards expiration time can be revised by the Governance Committee during the initial 6 epoch period. And even then, with new chain deployments coming in the future, additional options would become available in the future.
The importance of fee expiration in the redistribution regards ensuring that funds are not lost on addresses that are lost/inactive. Without the expiration period, many of the protocol fees will be permanently lost, bringing a large source of inefficiency to the new system.
Regarding the balance booster, I think it’s a good opportunity to give people that also have PSP on other chains a boost while we port PSP 2.0 to other systems. The reason we are also including balances in ETH is because it fees unfair to boost all other chains but ETH, but we can change this idea if needed.
I totally agree with you and I think it’s the best way to do it!
But we could go further than 2 months and still fight against lost wallets.
I assume that a 6 months period would be enough to allow small net-worth wallets to be able to claim without loosing too much on smart contract execution fees (think about ETH price 2/3/4X or more and activity on Ethereum network growing even in bear market).
The main purpose is to get as much new users and investors as possible, even if they’re small fishes. Now if all the rewards/apr earned goes to smart contrat execution fees we’re going to close the door to potential new supporters/stakers.
I think that, if we want the “Social Escrow” model to succeed, we need to design every element of the model with the main goal of being accessible by most of the people.
Wow, amazing work here !
I’ll come up with a more detailed comment, but for now, I’m taking all this new information and I let it sink in !
This is the key point for a successful PSP 2.0! I agree with @enerow, we shouldn’t close any doors.
People cannot be forced to choose between losing a significant percentage of income or all of it. The problem is that on L1 we are dependent on network activity and it is difficult to anticipate this, but we shouldn’t accept an average loss of more than 5% of revenue.
Increasing the duration is a half solution because we don’t know the activity of the network in the future.
I totally disagree with the Fairdrop. Not now, Fairdrop shouldn’t happen now when all tokens are striving to maintain balance and community trying to Make PSP pump, then some users will receive the Airdrop and boom start dumping on the Loyal PSP members. Fairdrop is good but I’m against it
I think those people needs to be included in the fairdrop criteria who have staked their PSP tokens which they get from the first airdrop till now. They are the most loyal token hodler.
what you guys have a say on this??
Great proposal and great discussion here, looking forward to PSP 2.0
Against fairdrop, nothing to add to what’s been said already
This argumentation is valid but still doesn’t justify a 2 month period as duration does not halt the function of this system. Even if we do 24 months we still get lost fees back into Treasury. The only variable is wen the Treasury gets to claim them. 2 months feels like robbing the user tbh
Like Enerow said 6 months should be fine.
I’m pretty sure that increasing the length of the claim isn’t a solution. The activity of the network is unknown, it may be worse to claim in 6 months than in 2 months. It’s necessary either to rethink the way to recover the rewards of dead addresses, or to carry the staking on a L2. Today major Defi projects are running on L2, we all know here as crypto optimists that L2 will mature quite quickly.
If anyone can argue against porting the staking system to an L2, I’m interested in feedback.
I guess Security. The more you add layer, the more you add vulnerability.
As mentioned in the original proposal, Layer 2 and other chains are being considered as well. Since the current staking system is only available in Ethereum Mainnet, so we need to begin by proposing ways to alter the current system in this network. Once the core system is developed, we can also begin planning new chain deployments for staking. So yes you are right, the claim period adjustments are simply a way to deal with the period from initial deployment of this new system until it becomes available on new chains!
Darn won’t be getting that fairdrop. Just started PSP Stake and trading on here in Sept 2022. Everything is quickly switching in my view but this been in works for quite some time. Glad I took the time to read more about PSP 2.0 Renaissance. Was enjoying PSP 1.0 and came close to finding a new dex but now for 2023 Paraswap will be my go to dex. Will be loading more PSP while its still cheap.
Thank you everyone that had an hand in making and continued to improving an awesome platform. Keep up the great work. Hopefully in the near future I can contribute back in some form. Cheers!
Congrats for this proposal and the work done !
Following the changes proposed by the community, we suggest the following version of the PSP 2.0 proposal be voted on and potentially implemented.
Compared to this version, we have implemented some of the following changes:
- Increase in fee redistribution claim time and a commitment to explore the possibility of rollups as a method of claiming rewards.
- Altering the parameters for the Trading ParaBoosts to better accommodate community suggestions of volume and tokens traded
- Separate Fairdrop discussion into a different proposal that shall be handled after the vote of the current proposal.
Depending on the amount of additional discussion that is left, we would aim to put this proposal to a vote next week, so make sure to share your thoughts!
I would propose the fairdrop would go to addresses who referred in the past, but only to those who can prove this and to those whose refferrals are still activly using Paraswap and stake(d).
This would also incite them to stay active here and the fairdrop would become a fair reward instead.
The FairTrading idea Gearbox uses would be a good implementation for the weeks towards launch of 2.0.