even if they would give us the necessary badges to bring the multiplier back up, it wouldnt work retroperspectively - meaning your current 1 year stake will not benefit in any case
This might be a good idea with a temporary badge that can be burned keeping the multiplier at the previous level of the average staked token length. Good idea.
1.) each badge will possess a separate pool ID. Each badge pool ID will be respected by the Staking V2 contract and eligible for sRBW convert boosts. Meaning different tier of badges will be accounted for, with each tier possessing an ascending sRBW convert.
2.) players would benefit from assigning two different tiers of badges to one account, but in no circumstances would it be more beneficial to have a TI & T11 badge over a TIII badge.
3.) Can you elaborate on this point? I am unsure what you mean.
4.) No, sorry that was a typo that has since been corrected. The max staking duration will remain at 1 year.
5.) Bonuses from badges delegated to an account will be permanent and apply to all future deposits.
6.) There won’t be a cap, but Design will closely monitor sRBW converts attached to each badge whether present or future to prevent imbalance.
Players will receive voting badges for every past, present, & future vote that they participated in. These are in the works and will be awarded prior to the two-week delegation period ending.
Design/CM also have some exciting events in the works that will contain badge rewards. Our goal is to create different ways to obtain badges so that every player has the chance to obtain them. Whether this be through active gameplay / progress, community events, art contest, leaderboards, etc. In the coming months you will see these plans begin to take flight.
It is important to keep time-lock multipliers high, as we want to incentivize long-term supporters. Overtime, as players engage in the game, community events, 2P games, etc they will acquire many badges that influence their sRBW convert. This system aligns with CU’s goal of always placing high emphasis on rewarding our players / community members who have been here and support CU for the longest.
I’m not sure what you mean here, timetraveler. For example (not the actual value), if LG+Investors’ voting power right now is 80% and the rest has 20%, there is ultimately no change in the fact that LG+Investors’ hold the majority. We expect that this will change over time as RBW unlocks based on the 5+ year unlock schedule. In the short term, this slight decrease in voting power does not change anything, but once everyone has restaked or once everyone has started new staking activities, the boosts will kick in and the overall voting power of everyone will increase.
PS: It also must be noted that despite this, we’ve so far never voted on any of the proposals put forward in front of the community and would do so only when we feel it’s absolutely necessary.
These are all good points and should be considered. As we previously stated in the council room, maintaining sRBW balances upon migration was requested in the intial product spec for Staking V2. During the design of this feature, there were several concerns that Vault brought forward related to this that lead to this requirement being cut.
These concerns were mainly related to the amount of complexity it would add to an already complex contract. Simply speaking, this would require a code snippet that would allow a controller to override the sRBW convert calculated by the contract and input the old balance. This snippet would only be used upon migration, but would always be a component of the contract- the more components in a contract the more safe guards we must install.
With the above stated for a background of our decision, we will say that we have asked Vault to reinvestigate this functionality to determine if there is a simpler way to implement it that wouldn’t add an unfavorable amount of complexity. In addition, we are internally discussing avenues to which we can mitigate concerns in ways that don’t touch the contract. As I mentioned in a separate comment, there is likely ways at which we could have players maintain their initial voting power for the remaining duration of the initial lock.
Happy to hear your feedback and continue discussing - ultimately conversations like these are what help to make DAO operate in a manner that benefits every member.
I’ll start off by saying I am not a tax lawyer by any means so I won’t be able to address your concerns. However, I will say that on the new contract, like the last contract, it is fully up to the player on when they claim their earned rewards. The one thing that differs on the new contract however, is that when a deposit expires and surpasses the grace period, it will be kicked from the contract and returned to the staker (if not claimed prior).
This is exactly how CVX operates and has proven to be an effective system as it ensures that stagnant deposits are removed and no longer capitalize from the benefits of active/locked participants.
We chose to make CVX’s vlCVX system the base off of contract as it has been battle tested for a long time and has not been exploited. Designing a new contract from scratch will not possess the same level of confidence and as such we feel like is the proper decision.
We are planning for badges to take a more active role in gameplay, community events, & leaderboards going forth that will be offered/obtainable on a regular cadence. This is not entirely limited to actively playing the game so there will be may opportunities to earn badges. The CM team is working on a joint project with the Design team to host exciting events that reward badges too so that’s something to look forward to!
Our goal is to create a more aligned and cohesive experience that rewards involvement in the different facets of the ecosystem. Gameplay is just one of the many ways to show involvement. For this reason, badges can be obtained both in-game and through other means of involvement (ex. community-related activities, etc)
The discussions in the council channel have been productive. I think there may just be some misunderstanding by the way the proposal is currently worded leading to the concerns mentioned above. Looking forward to hearing what solutions the vault team and others can provide and having the language cleaned up in the proposal. Thank you for all your hard work.
This may just be a misunderstanding from the language presented in the proposal. Yes I agree LG and investors will have the majority vote if needed to be used for multiple years. The example in the proposal given was that 12 month stakers who had 6 months remaining would go from 4x srbw for each 1 rbw staked to 2x srbw for each 1 rbw staked. From the wording presented it would halve the voting rights of the staker. With this said it has been stated in meeting that this is not the intentions or vision of the proposal. So hopefully we can amend proposal as it is revised in a way that it will be clear that however the migration happens it will not be taking away from peoples voting powers in the DOA.
Just want to add as well. Working with you and the council it is clear that this is supposed to fun and exciting and a good thing. Something to be excited about. Perhaps asking more questions or asking for clarifications would of been more efficient. Regardless it feels like we are making great progress and I thank everyone for their hardwork.
