NOTE The implementation discussed here is no longer relevant. The conversation has diverged significantly from what was laid out in this post. Please use this for reference only, it is not actionable.

Summary: This is a proposal for an implementation of locked staking based on feedback and discussion over recent weeks.

Abstract: I believe we are in consensus over the merit of offering locking with higher returns than regular staking. It has come down to implementation, and there have been several options proposed by myself and others in recent weeks. I have tried to synthesize those options into this, which I believe has the best pro/con structure.

How it'd work:

  • Locking would offer a multiplier on your stake. For example, a 1 year term could offer a 4x multiplier. By locking 10 OHM for 1 year, you would earn rewards on 50 OHM (10 + 10x4).
  • Different terms would offer different multipliers. Everyone would still earn from the same reward pool, but lockers would earn on a larger amount (and therefore earn more than stakers).
  • You can unlock before the end of your term, but you forfeit everything you have earned

What it might look like:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/838654785711505419/847264657995595826/image002_1.png
(This is a model. It's impossible to predict without knowing the breakdown of supply among terms).
Potential Staking Rewards
Y axis = multiple on 1 OHM
X axis = days (cutoff is 1 year from now)
Red part is what we have already done
Green is unlocked
Orange is 3 month lock
Blue is 6 month lock
Purple is 12 month lock

We should be able to accomplish the above while simulataneously reducing overall rewards from 0.53% supply per epoch down to 0.25% supply per epoch. We can sustain that rate for over a year with current reserves. This would offer a healthier balance of reward accumulation and backing appreciation. As you can see, lockers do not have to forfeit much for this; the rate of exponentiation is lower, but 1y lockers would likely start at a higher rate than they earn right now.

How you'd interact:

  • There would be a slider window on the dApp where you can choose your lock term.
  • Options would be in 1 month intervals.
  • You would see the boost % you're getting, and the additional amount of OHM you will earn on.
  • After locking, you will receive a voting locked token (vlOHM) that allows you to retain governance power. (This is the only purpose of vlOHM. You will never actually interact with it. It is minted to your wallet when you lock and burned from your wallet when you unlock. It cannot be transferred, traded, or utilized beyond governance.)
  • When your lock is complete, you claim your OHM plus rewards.
  • Before your lock is complete, you can reclaim what you staked (but forfeit all rewards).

Proposed multipliers:
Multipliers need to be computed off chain because lockers can compound their multiplier. Someone who locks for 12 months must earn at a higher rate than someone who locks for 1 month 12 times, otherwise everyone will do the former and they're never all that locked. This type of math is hard to do on chain, so it will become a governance policy parameter.
I propose the following: (annualized rate = boost if they compound the boost for a year at the end of each lock)
1 month: 7% boost (125% annualized)
2 months: 16% boost (144% annualized)
3 months: 27.5% boost (165% annualized)
4 months: 42% boost (186% annualized)
5 months: 60.5% boost (211% annualized)
6 months: 83.5% boost (236% annualized)
7 months: 112.5% boost (264% annualized)
8 months: 149% boost (293% annualized)
9 months: 195% boost (323% annualized)
10 months: 255% boost (357% annualized)
11 months: 335% boost (397% annualized)
12 months: 450% boost (450% annualized)

For: Implement it. Aligns incentives to compete to lock supply off the market. Reduces total inflation, strengthening market and reducing decay of backing.

Against: Do not implement it. Extra level of complexity versus basic staking. Requires commitment to get higher rewards.

Rollout plan:
Double XP weekend! We should start distributing rewards at the current 0.53% rate to both the old contract and the new one. Stakers would have 2 days to migrate before rewards start to decrease on both (with old staking falling to 0 and new staking falling to 0.25%).

    Zeus "Before your lock is complete, you can reclaim what you staked (but forfeit all rewards)." Would this apply to someone who unstakes at 11 months who had locked for 12? I think the majority of ohmies would intend to lock for 12 but from time to time things happen over the course of the year. It seems we might want to address tiers at which this loss of rewards is determined. It seems a bit off to punish someone who DID lock for 11 even though they intended to lock for 12.

        CMill the thought process behind having it like that is 1) to promote responsible behavior (don't lock more than you can afford to have illiquid!) and 2) because it should be a contract. If you sign a 12 month lease on a house, and you want to leave 11 months in, you're still going to have to pay the 12th month whether you like it or not. Your landlord probably isn't going to care that you already paid 11 months worth because you made a deal for 12.

            CMill I would suggest people to have different locks on their stack to prevent these type of situations.

            Regarding the proposal itself:

            I think it is a good proposal as it addresses multiple issues at the same time:
            1) APY reduction and by the same effect Runway Extension
            2) 3,3 has a bigger impact with locks
            3) Low Time preference behavior is encouraged
            4) People get to choose what they want to do. Even if you don't want to lock you get rewards.

            I hope that the community will be able to rally behind this proposal and that we can put all these staking/APY discussions behind us and shift our focus back on building.

            (3,3)

              Agree, as this should drastically reduce sell pressure, anyone who doesn't lock will also have much less OHM to sell. Heavily rewards 3,3's over -1,-1's

              Jawesome rewards should be the same for everybody . And adding another layer of contract isn't very appealing for a new stackers. I would prefer small random rebases . Long term stackers would gain more in a the long term (like lock stacking), no discrimination , more flexibility for everybody.

                  I think this might be a good direction for the protocol but I have some concerns about long term stakers suffering. If you have a 1 year lockup and something outside of someone's control happens 10-11 months into the 1 year, they could end with less than others doing smaller times locked.

                  Is there anyone to use a multiplier without lock-ups? so longer term holder benefit without punishing users for not predicting their correct window for how long they want to hold.

                  Also I think this is too quick to rollout, there are probably a lot of US based holders, and this is big Holiday weekend.
                  I think there should be a minimum of 1 week before we switch the current staking rewards to 0
                  We need to give users a chance to learn whats going on before switching!!

                  • Zeus replied to this.

                    KirKanos974 While rewards should definitely be the same for everybody, the protocols health is most important. Distribution of rewards through a tiered approach where you can reward long term holders > short term flippers is how you can achieve stability.

                    Adding another layer of contract has nothing to do with stakers. You will have a clean front-end design that let’s you choose.

                        spacedogGhost agree with last piece, removed the piece about Saturday-Monday, we will give >1 week notice 🙂
                        having multipliers without lock-ups kinda defeats the purpose, imo the illiquidity is the tradeoff for the multiplier. Lockers should not lock more than they can afford to not have access to for whatever term they choose. You should always have funds on the sidelines just in case. pls no all in sell-the-house 1 year locks ohmies

                          Jawesome I understand , but i don't understand why cutting sellers short is that important imo? some ppl sell ok lot's of us buy bonds and stake. gradually adjusting he runway is way more important , and utility. I'm not an expert but it's my 2 cents.

                              I agree with the premise but I think its been done overly complicated and could have unforeseen ramifications.
                              The 52 week multiplier needs to be exactly what it currently is in the protocol. The shorter the duration, the less the apy will need to be to balance it out.
                              I think boosts are too complicated for the masses.
                              400% return on your money in one year in a volatile coin that you would have to be locked in for a year with no rewards for early pull out, is probably not very appealing to the masses.
                              I think rushing this in when the coin is at the bottom of a cycle is also a mistake. I think you need to wait until the second price increase cycle goes back to $800 (in 45 days or so). If you roll this out and it fails for one of a hundred reasons, you may never get back to success. Predictability is the number one thing the participants need to see.
                              Let the coin cycle again, the runway will increase automatically, then make drastic changes. The only reason I like this is for long term price stability, but the market will do it for us automatically.

                                KirKanos974 current setup is plenty friendly to long term stakers, but it is also too friendly to short term stakers. there should be a tradeoff to flexibility (you earn less)

                                • Graz replied to this.

                                    I really like this, I say we do it