PSP Staking Model Upgrade

[starny]

@tokenbrice

glad to see you made it there! Please, never apologize for getting involved in the shared governance of common DeFi goods!

I do not apologize, I prefer to specify anyway because I know that I am not an “expert” but I do my best!

@tokenbrice

It gives a finite bound to the service they provide (= 1year of service) allowing them to price it. It’s a similar logic here expect we’re not pricing an insurance service but evaluating the contributions of market makers over a given epoch.

Yes is that why I was talking about 7-14-30 days or potentially a management like Convex with a 4 month lock?
But honestly, I find that 30 days is already enormous (in my opinion) … besides, it amazes me myself to propose this, because I hate the locks in normal times.

I sincerely think that: doing different locks (short / medium / long) would be really good in the future

the longer you are locked, the more you will be rewarded and also the more voting power

but if we want to remove the lock for those who don’t want it, this epoch system will have to be removed, so … it seems more complicated but some might appreciate it? But they shouldn’t forget that their vote / reward will be diminished compared to those who lock

[Pelerin_Prospere]

@tokenbrice

However, the staking decisions also influence the incentives model of the system: it’s a way to fine-tune it using the staker’s input to incorporate a qualitative evaluation of the MM on top of the quantitative made by the staking formula.

What does mind ‘qualitative evaluation’ ?
Cause in fact, i try to choise the most reward and stable pool, based on history data.

[tokenbrice]

In the wake of this discussion;, here’s a first proposal addressing the balance between staking and liquidity providing incentives: PSP-IPΔ5: Adjust incentive budgets

Another one will be submitted for the community to discuss shortly, addressing the rebalance of the reward distribution