Undelegation Period for MINE staking

This idea was initially raised in a tweet by Pylon Protocol back in October, but I strongly believe that it’s an idea worth revisiting.

Out of 4,448 total votes in the Twitter poll, over 69.7% of voters voted for some sort of an undelegation period. The breakdown of the results of the Twitter poll is attached as follows:

For current staking metrics, check out @laine_ust and his helpful dashboard on MINE stakers. You can see that there is a lot of day-to-day volatility in MINE staking (especially after particular IDO events that have required X amount of MINE staked to participate).

The following are reasons in support of adding on an undelegation period to MINE governance staking:

  • reducing day-to-day price volatility and fluctuations to a large extent, while incentivizing long-term holders to continue staking

  • preventing short-term users to “game” the system on Pylon Gateway, that is, to buy and stake MINE to enter into a pool or swap and then immediately unstake and sell the token, leading to price dumps after each gated IDO happens

  • preventing hesitancies with governance voting; some people are currently hesitating on voting in governance polls because if you vote in a governance poll, your MINE is locked for a period of 7 days; if there is an underlying unstaking period with MINE, then less people are disincentivized to vote; people who actively participate in voting shouldn’t be "punished’ for voting if flimsy short-term stakers can unstake and sell while diamond hands voters are being dumped on

  • leading to greater community consolidation and solidarity with more amounts that are locked in governance staking

Tracing Next Steps

The reasons above more than make up for the resulting lockup and less flexibility for users to easily come in and out of their staking positions, which isn’t healthy for the protocol in the long-run.

The main question here is: What is a reasonable length for an undelegation period for unstaking MINE?

7 days? 14 days? 21 days? What are your thoughts?

Depending on your thoughts here, I’ll push for a governance poll on this soon…

3 Likes

Hi @butaw - thanks for raising this.
I have been thinking about this undelegation period my self and would like to see it implemented.

I personally think that 21 days is too long.

But I guess an approach could be:

1 vote whether people wish for unstaking period at all
2 if pass then we vote on the actual period

But we probably have to get more people in here discussing the proposal first :blush:

1 Like

Currently there is a lockup if you partecipate to governance (till the end of the poll).
I think we need to consider governance form a higher level perspective:

  • mine, xMINE tokens. xMine corresponds to a lockup period (e.g. 6 months ) and gives a boost to voting power and staking airdrops redirection. Eventually: 3-6 month and 1 year periods can be selected.
  • Active poll partecipation rewarded like in mirror.

In this context I would not introduce a mandatory bounding period as the advanges for long term stakers would be clear.

1 Like

I am in support of a 14-day lock-up period.

I believe most, if not all incentives for $Mine governance staking are moving towards a time and amount based function. That is, airdrops, Pylon Swaps, and potentially the Pylon Treasury will all have a greater benefit to those who stake longer. For me, this in itself should help to heavily reduce the issues you described.

However, there will always be people who attempt to game the system. A 14-day lock period should help to keep these people away. I feel 14-days should be alright for Mine Governance stakers as the benefit of Mine staking is moving towards long term holders, so the idea of holding should be fine with them. I do however think 21 days is too long as it then becomes a decent impact on those looking to actually exit their position.

2 Likes

I’d be also up for some lock period, not sure 7 or 14 days tho. Given there are some terra launches that are using liqidity pools (astroport, apollo mining) it’s definitely easier to plan things with shorter lock period.

I like htis lidea - is it up for voiting now?

how about make a little penalty for redeeming instantly, and put a 14 day waiting on the withdrawl, lets say for example 14% penalty for instant withdraw, everyday this goes down by 1%, thus after 14% you get full withdraw without any penalty

I don’t like it, it would still enable people to sell during bigger movements. We want diamond hands here!

I don’t think this is a proper solution. Does it really incentivize a long term holders to continue staking? For me is a reason to no stake at all. An incentive shouldn’t come in the form of a punishment and at the end of the day it will only delay n-days the fluctuation, because if there is no value in staking or owning MINE people eventually will dump it, markets work that way. This restriction is more of an entry barrier, at least for me. You want to make MINE a token that people stake for a long time? Just make worth owning it for a long time.

3 Likes

At the end of the day we want diamond hands as @Bob_jornet pointed out. In terms of what was brought up by @BixclowArt, the 14 day window would definitely allow more work and changes to be made in the middle instead of people being able to unstake and making an emotionally impulsive decision to dump MINE right away, or just staking MINE to get into an IDO and then dumping rightafter.

We want long-term stakers not paper hands — and given the additional airdrop rewards, access to governance polls, and IDO access, it’s fairer to set a higher entry bar to get the most loyal stakers and holders to be the most benefited…

2 Likes

Very good argument. Actually I am in cause I believe in huge long term growth

I think that to motivate an undelegation period we need to have good reasons.
we should not consider it as a way to force accumulation, but just a way not to allow people to game the system.

It could makes sense to ​prevent timing of airdrops from buybacks. Anyway it depends how such airdrops are handled. If the MINE buyback is distributed each fixed number of blocks after it is performed even the ‘flash staking’ is not effective.

2 Likes

like blackbird said, if airdrops and potential upcoming project launches all adopt the same xMine or tMine that factor in staking duration and staking qty, would a lock-up period for un-delegation still be necessary by then?

1 Like

Personally I would be for a lock period only for IDOs.
For example, if a project decides to launch with Pylon swap/scout then a certain amount of Mine should be blocked 1 week before the swap and then 2 weeks after the swap.

The voting lock is the same on all protocols, I don’t think that is a reason to impose a lock on all stakers.

I think that the lack of participation in the votes is due to a poor knowledge of the project or a lack of personal investment. A lot of people just buy, stake and put the project aside while the price goes up. You just have to see the number of participants on the forum.

Better communication on the various polls via the Announcement channel, messages pinned to the main channel and Twitter messages would have a better result on participation in the vote than a mandatory lock.

I’m newer here but have been owning/staking/participating on Pylon for a good period of time now. I don’t believe a delegation period is the solution here. I think we find our solution with minimum quantities to own in order to participate. That was the original idea in the first place. Locking up will push people away. The trick will be a cooperation with launching projects, but I don’t think that will be too hard. I hate to say this but look at Star Terra and the price of their coin and the projects launching. At this point, if you didn’t believe in the project and get in on it, well, it will cost you a pretty penny to buy enough to invest in projects.

We are shirt changing ourselves without minimums and people are gaming the system ONLY because we are allowing it. Just my thoughts and two cents

Adjusting the scale of APY from gov staking based on chosen lock up period, from 0 days to 365 days (considerable diminishing returns at the max of 365 days but it’s still a bit extra for long terms hodlers).

Being a 365 day staker could become a trigger for an additional reward to incentive max commitment.

1 Like

F the paper hands. It may lead to short term negative price action as people jump out…. But long term focussing on your loyal supporters as #1 will create more loyal supporters from the current paper hands… if they’re rewarded for commitment especially.

yes, it’s up for voting Pylon Webapp
I voted YES

Just a remark: we cannot throw work on developers with every poll. We should think about it.
To me the first poll should be just to force the discussion.
Undelegation makes sense in luna, which is backing UST and stakers act as a security cushion. Here it is just an empirical attempt to increase mine value.
Mine value is given by growth. No reason to try to artificially pump it: it will make happy only short term traders.
ATM I don’t see any case for an undelegation (from what by the way? we are not delegating, we are staking).

4 Likes

I agree with @BixclowArt this seems more likely to stop people from staking in the first place. The unstaking period for LUNA is a security requirement to verify finality of Cosmos chains. It isn’t there to protect against sell-pressure.

Some other ideas:
If the goal is to reduce price volatility an unstaking period would just delay a sell. I think a better approach would be looking at incentives or additional utility for those who are staked.

Stop people from gaming IDOs? Add a delay before staked gets counted. Projects can also time their announcements within this window to filter out short-term traders.

Our voting mechanism already includes a bond to tie vote weight to what a user locks. Perhaps we could do something similar on swaps? Lock x amount for y length to gain access to this IDO.

Another option if everyone absolutely wants an unstaking period, is the model used by Curve, Polkadot, Astroport, Osmosis, Liquid Driver, Spirit and many other projects. Incentives for longer stake, but still let people decide their lock time and amount.

I really hate anything in life that forces me with penalties! I think more people are like this.

We should incentivize people not penalize!

no unstaking delays, but give an incentive to staking, some examples:

  • The longer you stake, the more APY% you get on top ( we can use the vault??)
  • Staking required to join IDOs, perhaps even attach thressholds ex. 1000 Mine buy max xx, 10000 Mine buy max xx etc.
  • The longer you staked the higher % you get airdrops, ex. each month staked = 1% more rewards on top of what you normally get?
  • Staking history of each month = 1 day earlier buy/ pool deposit etc etc
  • Perhaps something i with vote weight x 0.05% per month staked untouched?

just some fast examples I can think of on the spot

3 Likes