Staking v2 Proposal


Staking is a mechanism in the nascent web3 industry designed to incentivize holding behavior and encourage voting participation. However, early iterations of staking mechanisms have an inherent flaw in that they incentivize passive staking over active gameplay and community participation. In the context of Crypto Unicorns, staking RBW and voting allows players to participate in making decisions that affect the future of the game and overall IP.

We believe that active players are in the best position to signal the direction we should take as a DAO during the early stages of building our IP and governance system. With this Staking v2 proposal, we plan to be the first in the industry to create a more aligned staking experience by incentivizing active community and game participation through sRBW multiplier boosts via an innovative badge system. This unique badge boost system will enable active players to increase their timelock-based sRBW multiplier for higher staking rewards versus passive stakers. To be able to apply all this, we need to migrate to a new staking contract.


  • We believe in incentivizing active players with higher rewards over passive stakers
  • We believe in empowering active players to participate in governance


This proposal is characterized by four major features:

I. Contract Migration

Players’ existing RBW & RBWLP deposits will be migrated to the new staking contract and will maintain the same remaining time duration. Migrating to the contract will also allow LG to take full control of the contract from Vault, Inc. via ⅗ multisig ownership.

  • A. Migrating the RBW/RBW LP Deposits

    • When the new contract is ready, existing deposits will need to be removed from the old contract and moved to the new contract.
      • Vault will manually migrate deposits over to the new contract, so there will be no action needed from the players.
    • Deposits will be restaked for their remaining duration and maintain the original sRBW amount.
    • In addition, Badge Boosts will be applied to the migrated deposit if the player delegates staking badges to their account prior to Vault migrating the deposits.
      • The original sRBW amount tied to the migrated deposit will be increased by the total boosts from the badges the player has delegated prior to migration.
      • We will open a two-week delegation period where players can delegate their badges prior to migrating the existing deposits over. Additional information will be provided through the CM team, as the schedule is dependent on if/when this proposal gets approved.
  • B. Migrating Contract Ownership

    • Upon migrating to the new contract, Laguna Games will have full control of the contract through ⅗ multisig ownership.
      • This is important in mitigating risks by ensuring that no contract changes will be applied without the DAO’s approval.
      • This will also ensure that we have access to the contract in the event that we lose contact with the Vault team. While we do not see this really happening, we want to ensure that we’re prepared for any worst-case scenario.

II. Badge Delegation

Functionality that allows players to delegate badges to a staking account.

  • Players should be able to delegate badges from their playing accounts to their staking accounts.
    • There is no limit to how many badges a player can delegate to their staking account. However, each badge type can only be used once to get a boost. (ex. If there are 2 Summer of Love I badges delegated to a staking account, the staking account will only receive an sRBW boost for one of them.)
  • Each badge will need to be “delegated” for the boosts to apply.
    • Delegation will take place on the Vault UI and will require the players to select a badge, insert their staking address, and sign a transaction to delegate it.
    • Once a badge is delegated, it will be permanently tied to the delegated account and can no longer be removed or redelegated to a different account. This is an important consideration for those who use multiple wallets.
  • As mentioned above, each badge can only be delegated once. Once it has been delegated to an address, the delegated badge can no longer be removed and will indefinitely apply a boost on the assigned staking account.
  • Badges will be delegated on a per-badge basis.
    • If a player so desires, they can delegate their badges to multiple staking addresses. However, it is not possible to delegate a previously-delegated badge a second time to a different account. (Ex. It is possible to delegate 4 different badges to 4 different staking accounts, but it’s not possible to delegate the same badge to two different accounts.)
  • In cases where a player’s playing account and staking account is the same address, the player will still need to delegate their badges to the address.

III. Boosts

Functionality that supports adding sRBW boosts from badges.

  • When a deposit is “staked”, a player will receive sRBW based on the multipliers from both the duration of the time lock and the delegated badges.
    • Similar to how time lock multipliers are applied, each badge will have a designated multiplier per pool id/badge type.
    • Badge boosts do not get applied retroactively. Badges need to be delegated prior to staking for the boost to apply.
      • Delegating a badge after one has already completed the staking operation will not change the existing sRBW balance.
      • Instead, the boost from the newly-delegated badge will be applied to all future staking operations.
    • The contract will sum up the boosts from all delegated badges and the multiplier from the time lock to determine the final sRBW multiplier. This applies to both RBW and RBWLP staking operations.
      • For example, a player stakes 100 RBW for 1 year and has two badges that provide an additional 0.05 convert each.
        • RBW Deposit: 100
        • Time Lock Multiplier: 4
        • Cumulative Badge Boost: 0.1
        • Ending Multiplier: 4.1
        • sRBW Balance: 410 sRBW
  • Only 1 badge per type will be counted in the sRBW boost calculation for each staking wallet.
    • Each badge will be distinguished by “pool id”.
    • If a staking account has been delegated multiple badges of the same pool id, the player will get a boost only once for each pool id/badge type.
      • For example, a player delegated the following badges will have .16 boost:
        • 2 Founders Badge (.1 multiplier per badge)
        • 1 Dark Forest Badge (.05 multiplier per badge)
        • 5 I Survived Badge (.01 multiplier per badge)
        • Total Boost: 0.16 (from 1x Founder Badge, 1x Dark Forest Badge, & 1 x I Survived Badge)
          Note that the boost values here are used only to illustrate the point.

IV. Purging

A functionality that will allow Vault, LG, or the players to purge expired deposits from the staking contract once the grace period has expired. Purging is an important process as it mitigates the ability of expired deposits to generate rewards and maintain voting privileges.

  • When a deposit has expired and surpassed the “grace” period, players/bots will be able to “purge” the deposit and receive a reward. Initially, we’d like to propose a grace period of 14 days from when the deposit expires before the “purge” option becomes available.
  • Similar to vlCVX, it will be possible to call the contract to “purge” a player.
    • Purging a deposit will remove it from the contract and return the player’s original RBW deposit to their wallet.
    • Purging a deposit will generate a reward that is equal to a percentage of the purged player’s deposit.
      • We would like to pose that this fee be set at 0.1% of the deposit.
      • If a player had an expired deposit that equals 1,000 RBW and it was “purged”, the purging address will receive 1 RBW, and the depositing player will receive 999 RBW.
  • Initially, we wish to leave to the players the responsibility of calling the contract to execute the purge on expired deposits. However, Vault/CU will assume responsibility for this if the expired deposits don’t get purged in a timely manner.


This is the first staking mechanism of its kind in the web3 gaming space. With this new design, we challenge the current status quo in staking mechanisms and take a step towards a more aligned experience that rewards involvement in all the different facets of the ecosystem, such as active gameplay and community participation. We ask that community members review this and vote in support of it once it goes on Snapshot.

Revision logs:
10/25/2022: Grammar and formatting changes
10/29/2022: Update on how migration will affect the sRBW amount migrated


:100: YES !!! This is great and a beautiful way to not only recognize the active players but also reward them for their commitment. Thanks Team :heart:


not sure how I feel about limiting it to 1 badge per type, but i guess there are good reasons for it. definitely like the rest though!


It’s not quite clear enough to draw any conclusions yet…


Does this mean that RBW which is staked right now will not get any boosts if we apply the badges before the migration to Staking v2 and badges will be only applied to the new staking?

Also would love to see the whole list of badges and it’s multipliers.


I love the idea and technical implementation specs, but think the boost needs to be more drastic. In the example provided of a .16 boost, you’re only rewarding active players a 4% overall boost on a 4 year lock.

Large passive stakers are consistently dumping their RBW rewards (see and filter by minimum $500). Small to medium sized players are reinvesting their RBW staking rewards into the game, and the DAO benefits from that through marketplace taxes.

Unless there is a deal behind the scenes to extend vesting or cliff period for seed investors, I do not think these boosts are large enough. Players should get a 15-30% boost on a 4 year lock over passive investors i.e. 0.6-1.2 boost in multiplier points.

Such an elegant idea to reward active players. Not sure why the proposed boosts are so negligible.


I agree with you @swmartin19
I feel that playing the game should be more rewarding. Not necessarily 30 % but something in the double digits - absolutely yes. After all we need to make sure that “inactive” wales don’t dump their shares right away if they feel unfairly treated.

One of my worries is that smaller very active players willl not get any benefits from V2. Not everyone has the budget to make it to the top 100 in the leaderboards. This sometimes comes down to money. To avoid that, future leaderboards, rewards and badges need to add an additional factor: Time spent. Example SoL Leaderboard:
A wale can easily get in the top 100, while an active user with less budget has no chance to get there. I have no idea at the moment of how to solve that problem but surely others will!

Even unchanged from the original proposal, this is way better than staking V1 already. Looking forward to the implementation :slight_smile:


agree on better than staking v1, just think the numbers need tweaked in a big way.

Members from Delphi (seed investor), for example, are actively playing, in discord, and contributing to the community. If a seed investor doesn’t like heavy imbalance towards players, then simply play the game and allocate badges accordingly. This incentivizes early investors to give LG valuable product feedback without diluting their share of staking rewards.


Looks promising but definitely want more details.

  1. How are badge tiers handled?
  2. Any reason to assign differently tiered badges to a single account?
  3. How does this relate to the founder rewards program?
  4. Will this really support staking for 4 years?
  5. Will badge bonuses ever expire?
  6. Will there be a cap to badge bonuses?

Hello, Invoko. There will be a two-week period before migration where everyone will be asked to delegate. During that time, please delegate your badges BEFORE Vault migrates everything. If you delegate before the migration, the boosts will apply.


Limiting to one badge per type is to prevent staking accounts from receiving benefits from duplicate delegated badges.

I.e. if a staking account had 4 Season of Love T1 badges delegated to them, they would only receive the sRBW boost for one of them, rather than all 4.

This is a needed safeguard to prevent one staking account from receiving / capitalizing off of duplicate badges sent from many addresses.


Thank you for sharing your thoughts, swmartin19. As we move through the our development cycle, we will introduce more badges. Our design team is ever-so-delicately balancing everything such that it’s not only rewarding in the present but also future-proof. I hope that makes sense. I’ll be raising your concern re: the boost multiplier to be sure.

EDIT: Note that the values here are just examples. These are not the final values. As more badges will be introduced as we go along, it is difficult to provide a full list this early.


Gotcha, clear for me now.
Hopefully there will be more strongly boosted rewards. Also would be great to deploy new batch of badges as for active voting, which are not yet implemented. Wish this were developed before the two-week period before migration as well.


I hadn’t considered the possibility of future badges that @cuppy pointed out in discord. That makes wayyyyy more sense. Good prop. Thx for ur efforts.

1 Like

Thanks Korbin. I don’t really see how that pevents duplicate staking though. Lets assume I have 5 Wallets with equal badges from playing them since launch.

Now if I want to maximize my staking rewards, I’ll stake with 5 different wallets.
I’d have less sRBW per wallet, but overall it should be the same.

Since the boost does not apply retroactively, there is no point in delegating it to my main staking wallet, but rather split and just stake for another year and enjoy boosts on several different wallets.

1 Like

I think time-based multiplier should be drastically reduced while badge-based multipliers should be higher.


I support this proposal. I suggest adding a new badge every week with 1% bonus

EDIT: I don’t support this part of the proposal: “If a 1 year deposit that had 9 months remaining was migrated to the new contract, this deposit is automatically staked for 9 months. (ex. If a player previously staked 100 RBW for 1 year (x4 conversion or 400 sRBW) and has 4 months remaining at the time of the migration, the player’s deposit would be restaked for 4 months and will get 200 sRBW at x2 conversion.)”

1 Like

Will give a full address of my thoughts later today. One thing that stands out to me is during migration the player losers the multiplier attached to their staked amount.

Example. I staked for 12 months ago 1000 RBW at 12 months for multiplier of 4x. Six months has passed and the migration happens. My 1000 RBW staked now has 6 months left and only a 2x multiplier. This was not the contract I signed. This was not the risk I agreed too. When we agreed to the risk we were 30x the price of RBW is currently.

So I see 2 options here.

Option 1. During migration multiplier stays the same as when staker signed staking contract.

Option 2. Staker can say no and stake ends and they receive back their RBW. They can then choose whether to restake to current contract specifications or not.

Just my thoughts. But changing the agreed upon contract is a breach of good faith. If the community votes for this I could respect the decision. But if LG uses a veto to pass it I would not be okay with this. Will write more here later. But had not seen anyone address this yet. Hopefully with communities feedback something that works for all will be thoughtfully accomplished here. I like the idea of most of it. Could be awesome. Just wanted to address the elephant in the room as I saw it. Thanks team. This could be great.


I dislike this entire feature. There are a multitude of reasons that someone might want to avoid claiming their RBW right when it is unlocked. The main one being taxes. If I claim my RBW at the wrong time, it can have a massive impact on the taxes that I have to pay, and will ROYALLY screw me over (same goes for anyone US based or anyone that has to pay crypto taxes). Maybe instead make it so that after the 14 day (or whatever wait time) they no longer receive rewards from the contract, but they can withdraw it whenever they want?

I disagree with this as well. When those people locked their RBW into the contract, they did so at an agreed upon duration and with an agreed upon voting multiplier. Changing it mid contract and without the ability for people to change what they have is hardly fair or right. If someone locked in 5000 RBW for 1 year to get 20000 votes, and then all of a sudden has 10000 votes with it still being locked for 6 more months, if it were me, I would be really, really upset. The 3 solutions I can think of are 1. give people the remaining time with the voting power they agreed on, or 2. give people the option to withdraw / not migrate their stake. The 3rd solution that I’m not as big of a fan of is giving people the option to re-up their time to a year (or whatever increase of time they want) on migration. That way they do not have to wait 6+ months to get their full voting power again.

Right, but the people that only locked for 3 months that have now expired and can be withdrawn will be able to deposit for a year at 4x voting rewards now. Because more is able to be locked in, it instantly becomes disproportionate imo.

Can we add some plan for reputable 3rd party companies to do an audit and include the potential costs / time requirements of it? Given the recent game bank hack, I think multiple audits on the staking contract are exceptionally important.

What is it currently? How does this change things?

Maybe change the wording on this, I don’t think it should be called delegation in this instance. Could confuse people in regards to future proposals.

This ties back into my points above. Someone who’s stake is claimable could apply all their badges for a large boost and then stake for a year and have much more voting power than everyone else.

Could we have a list of all badges and their multipliers please?
Edit: since the multipliers are not final, could we get a list of badges and their types? At least the ones that currently exist?


I agree with everything here 100%