Rationale - The drop in Burn-Drop is supposed to reward long-term stakers of >91 days. As implemented it actually puts ultra long-term stakers of 1-3 years at a significant disadvantage. Currently, they have to choose between 1) receiving burn-drop rewards (with stake-lock on) and 2) winding down stake duration (stake-lock off) and not receiving these rewards.
This dilemma should be eliminated in fairness to the longest term stakers of the IOTX token.
As an example, someone with 330 days of stake duration remaining on a bucket should be able to wind down that bucket and still receive burn-drop rewards until their remaining stake duration drops below 91 days. This is a common sense and long overdue fix.
Any user staking for 91 days or greater should receive burndrop.
Currently someone with 91 days and stake lock on is better off then someone with greater the 91 days with it off , even though the second user effectively has more commitment to the network up to maximum of 1050 days vs only 91.
The minimum of 91 days should qualify a user not 91 with stakelock , it then means only below 91 days is treated equally
this makes total sense. Someone who chooses to commit to a longer duration is a huge supporter of the network. Penalizing them for prolonged durations isn’t necessarily the best thing. Definitely support sticking to either 91 days of no-reward window or perhaps, automatically switching to 91 days window after the initial commitment period is over (i.e. changing the definition of x days of commitment to an initial commitment rather than a perpetual commitment).
Interesting discussion, Metanyx raises a good point. However, the idea of Burndrop is that it incentivised users to stake-lock, not just stake longer duration. Staking 91 days + stake lock gives the network participants ways to determine the security of the network, by checking how many are locked in, and how many are in the process of running down their stake duration. With the proposed changes, the whole stake lock mechanism becomes useless, in the name of everyone wanting to get the extra rewards. I don’t think this is a good idea. The other proposed change, being able to stake-lock a bucket without needing to re-stake the original duration, fixes the biggest issue, so I don’t think this is necessary. I also created a bucket a long time ago that was stake locked for 365 days with burndrop, and only after a year I figured out that after disabling stake lock I needed to wait another year to unstake. But during that year I received extra rewards while it was stake locked, and still received rewards while the stake wound down, so I don’t see an issue here. I think most people who have an issue with the stake lock burn drop mechanism made a mistake a long time ago, but that’s not a good reason to give extra burndrop rewards to everyone, in my honest opinion
I don’t understand why with stakelock on, it actually means twice the length of time you nominate, I wanted to stakelock for two years not four. Now I have to wait for two years without compounding interest, that is what makes staking worthwhile.
Perhaps part of the issue, when thinking about this, is semantic. Stake lock is not very descriptive. A better term would be ‘timer lock’ or ‘stake timer lock’. You get a certain level of reward for committing to setting a timer, say 91 days.
But you are in an enhanced reward level when you choose to enable ‘timer lock’, that condition which stops the active countdown. So, @Til75, it doesn’t double the length of time or determine any specific duration.
If I lock for 30 days in the morning and unlock in the afternoon, the 30 day timer is activated and 30 days later (+ 3 days waiting period) I can access my funds. But if I waited a year to unlock, at that point the 30 day countdown would begin.
I completely agree with Metanyx and Smart Stake on this. This is a long overdue fix. Anyone staked for 91 days has the same commitment, actually. Whether stake lock is on or not, both are 91 days away from being able to unstake. The stake locked guy just has the option to prolong if they remain stake locked, that’s all. There is no extra commitment here, just the potential or intent for extra commitment you could say. Someone staked for 1050 days without stake lock, however, is clearly the most committed.
Keep in mind that many of the ultra-long buckets were created in a show of faith towards IoTeX prior to burn-drop even being created. The stake-lock requirement was then introduced, disadvantaging our longterm OG stakers significantly.
This change is about fairness to all stakers, but I also would expect it to result in an increase in longterm stakers after implementation, because these longterm stakers will no longer be at a disadvantage to 91 day stake-locked stakers. This is a plus for network security.
Then why when I stakelocked for 730 days, then realised what was happening as many others were saying the same thing, when I unlocked 6 months later it still said 730 days until able get my funds. And I originally had it stakelocked for only 730 days.
Since unlocking it is now about 670 days until my staked funds are able to be withdrawn.
If I had waited 730 days to unlock, the countdown would have only started at that point in time. Therefore it would have taken another 730 days before I could actually extract my funds and 730 days without my compounding interest.
Very true.
So what I’d love to see is a standalone statement for a proposal that articulates a revised set of rules for stake locking. It should serve the original purpose of strengthening and stabilizing the network, not penalize long term stakers, and be very clear in laying out what locking means. We want long term commitments from people who understand what they are signing up for.
Agree, because it wasn’t evident to at the time. Staking for the minimum time should still attract compound interest and burn drop, if the point is to attract more people there should not be a penalty for our support.
Especially when people can stake with many other projects the time they nominate and retrieve their funds at the time of installing. Binance for instance.
However for delegates I think there should be a minimum of 5-10 years as they hold a lot of iotx and would cause huge price fluctuations if they could claim every 3-12 months.
I hadn’t considered the idea of a minimum staking period for delegates. That makes sense. But 5 - 10 years sounds like a long time to me. That’s a Venture Capital kind of time frame. That would bear discussing with Delegates to see what might be acceptable.