I raised this in the Telegram group and Admin suggested it would be worth discussing on the forum.
Now that we have a 14 day unlock period on gov (single) staking, we have reduced the fungibility of those tokens. I understand the locking is for sensible reasons, particularly around controlling the gamification of IDO participation and buybacks timing. However I think there is merit in introducing a fungible token for those locking in governance.
Creating a (p)Mine token as a receipt for staked Mine would:
- open up another secondary market which could increase revenue into the protocol. If this pool was managed as protocol owned liquidity the fee based revenue could go straight to implementing deflationary measures eg dedicated to buybacks and burns
- people could attempt to game IDOs and buybacks by staking for benefits and then selling the pMine however this secondary market should theoretically trade at a discount thereby reducing incentive for gaming
- because it would trade at a discount, it would maintain some reduction of selling pressure that has been achieved with locking. In addition buyers of the staking token would likely be more aligned to long term staking, thereby rewarding them an opportunity for them to acquire a call on the underlying Mine at a discount
- opens up the possibility of having tiered gov staking too eg unlocked with x% yield, locked with a premium yield (like the -ve models)
What are people’s thoughts on this? Is there any consensus that this, or a better version, would be worth pursuing as a governance proposal?
I think this is a great idea! From what I see liquid staking seems to be beneficial for a number of Terra projects eg. LunaX, xPrism and hopefully xAstro, xMars in the future. I think it improve staking efficiencies a lot by give users option to do a quick unstake on discount if they prefer.
But I think there might be some hidden complexities to think about? For example
If a user deposit in a pool with stake requirement eg. current XDEFI pool what should happen with that?
Also, would be nice if we have some perspective from Pylon devs on how feasible this is, from technical POV.
Seems like a very good suggestion to me.
Maybe (p)Mine should become the staking token. It would then be possible to bond his Mine to (p)Mine with an unbond period of 14 days. The (p)Mine would allow you to receive airdrops and allow you to participate in IDOs.
I see two solutions that would be beneficial for stakers:
-Either add an option to unbound instantly by permanently burning a certain percentage of (p)Mine (5%?) which would reduce the total supply.
i.e. Bond 10 000 Mine to 10 000(p)Mine, intant unbond with burning 5% 10 000 (p)Mine to 9 500 Mine. The 500 Mine are burnt for ever and reduced the total supply.
-Either add a (p)Mine/Mine pool would allow arbitrage, which would increase fees and therefore buybacks, which is good for stakers.
I don’t know if this is feasible, it would be interesting to have the opinion of the Devs.
Thanks for that response. I would like to hear from the devs too as I think there is significant value in these types of enhancements.
I like that bind and burn mechanism. That’s smart and consistent with other protocols we know too. The deflationary aspect is definitely attractive as there would be a consistent pressure there. Anyone going for the instant burn would also know that they are raising the value of whatever they keep locked which could elevate the incentive.
The pool suggestion links in with where I was thinking about PoL for the token too. A clear revenue generation imo.
Devs, any comments?
I generally like the idea of issuing “staking tokens”, however I think it should be called xMINE instead to follow the trend in Terra that “staking tokens” are denoted x. Examples are xMARS, xPRISM and xASTRO
Agreed. At time I proposed I wasn’t thinking of pmine as a definitive name. The p was just for pylon and I hadn’t taken consideration of potential for mine to be part of the Prism refraction program where we would want to have p And y Mine.
So yes x but that’s the minor thing here - need to get direction as a community to implementation.
Yeah you’re completely right, it’s a very minor detail
Also did some more reseach on it, and it seems like the
x staking tokens are for the once that accrue value over time, so that won’t be appropriate either.
As stated I’m very much for the idea too, I guess next steps would be to hear from the team.