PSP-IPΔ22 - PSP 2.0 - Revised Voting Edition

people who staked from past will receive a boost or it will be from beginning for all stakers ? :smiley:

Great project. To the moon !!!

Hey everyone,

Following all the feedback provided by the community, I will add these final minor changes before the vote, which should be ready in snapshot in a couple of days. Thank you everyone for the amazing input both here and other channels :raised_hands:

Here’s the proposed final adjustments:

  • Altering of PSP-EP procedure: Introducing ‘tiers’ to better clarify the levels of urgency and minimise protocol risk
  • Gas Refund Alterations: Doubling of the per-epoch limit to account for longer epochs. We’re also prosing changes regarding virtual lockup to account for user migration between tokens.

Thank you everyone for these suggestions!


About this one:

To encourage migration towards sePSP2, existing stakers could be eligible for a 6-epoch ParaBoost of 20% on their new stake once they complete the migration to sePSP2

Am I right to assume this would also apply to existing Safety Module stakers moving to sePSP2?

Also, will people that were staking in the safety module before the new contract benefit from an extra ParaBoost for up to 6 epochs prior to release?

Hello, TokenBrice here putting his procedure-reminder hat

  • I think it’s a critical violation of standard governance processes to establish both a new proposal format and an actual proposal within the same post: it should be have been split.
  • The proposal presented above is also not compliant with the PSP-IP framework: even if it comes from the team, I do not care: there is no special status when it comes to governance.

The proposal passed already anyway, and I woke up too late, but as a (now) remote participant of this governance, I felt the need to raise the flag and call for a much better enforcement of the governance procedures.

Again, just talking about governance procedures here, else I’m glad to see ParaSwap moving toward a new token model.

Hey, thanks for the suggestions,

I’ve added the PSP-IPΔ number , and a separate document for the PSP-EP will soon follow now that the vote has passed.

Regarding having to follow the PSP-IP framework, the proposal has been in development for months now and followed the essential steps outlined of research → clear communication changes in public → publishing the final proposal → incorporating community suggestions, and even an all-time high in community participation, including the greatest amount of contributors from both within ParaSwap and other protocols we’ve ever had.

With the proposal number being added, all key sections of the PSP-IP framework are there : A simple summary, the context, the goals, the means, a rationale, a clear outline of steps that will be implemented immediately after the vote as well as once PSP 2.0 passes. As previously explained here, this proposal is quite different from previous ones as it has an unprecedented level of complexity and atomicity between each of the complex steps. Because of this, trying to make it fit under the usual PSP-IP guideline sections would’ve just made the proposal even more challenging to read.

As you mentioned, the vote is over now, which means it’s too late to add a clarification, but it’s clear that there is a social consensus to proceed with this vote. PSP-IP22 has received 31 M PSP in favour, representing an ATH in voting in favour as of the time of writing! We cannot ignore the Layer 0 of social consensus, that is the most important part of any DAO :slight_smile: