Some great thoughts here. Just to provide mine personally:

Largest benefit is this enables hades for staking, not so much the USTS filter.
Higher warmup could reduce frequency and viability of bonds, raise costs for treasury. (This is important and was brought to my attention in response to this proposal)
This shouldn't be looked at in the same lens as locking, though it would have a similar effect to a small degree.

Note that compounding starts the moment you enter warmup, and we'd be sure to make that clear to end user.

Imo 1 epoch warmup is ideal. This accomplishes the tangible benefits (hades) and reduces costs as much as possible. I put many options on the poll because i think good polling enables choice as much as possible (curating options = altering opinions), but i personally don't think more than 3 days should be considered, let alone 7+.

Also note that this is adjustable, so I think it'd make sense to start at 1 and we can always extend it in the future (extending only effects new stakers. Those in warmup already would retain the same warmup length they signed up for).

    Echoing Zeus' point about the ill-effects on bonding - I too am a fan of 1-3 epochs & not more for the warmup.

    Zeus Is there any way to enable the Hades functionality without at least a 1 epoch warmup?
    If not, I agree that the warmup period of 1 epoch is the best option.

    • Zeus replied to this.

        Fulano technically yes, but it kind of defeats the purpose (those using it will stand out when the point is that they blend in)

          Zeus does the warm up start from when naked OHM is staked or everytime a rebase happens?

            on my reading it is at every time it rebases. and what I am learning here is that a 1 epoc staking would help the protocol
            longer than that is not particularly helpful. Esp when we have long term staking around the corner.

            We would have to consider what this does to bonders. Like what @Zeus mentioned, raising the warmup period more than 1-3 epochs would reduce viability of bonding to staking (1, 3) as a strategy (note that this is the reason why treasury has been going up in the first place).

            Personally, I think 1-3 epochs warmup period is enough.

            Zeus A single Epoch makes sense. Bonding is protocol growth, creating financial frictions will impede this process.

              If hades for staking can be implemented with 1 epoch warmup then I think that's what we should go for. No need to add any extra useless friction imo.

              A warmup period is a good tool to prevent unintended behaviour. Some thoughts from my side, also based on community brain playing out in the responses.

              • I do not follow why that extra transaction is necessary. As I see it an implementation would be possible without that constraint. I would like to hear the technical reason for this decision since I feel like I am missing something. /cc @Zeus
              • Having longer warm up periods punishes ohmies who help fill the treasury. IMO we want to encourage (4, 4), that is (1, 1) to (3, 3). A single epoch warmup period should be good enough to start with.
              • My understanding is a bit incomplete about multiple stakes. Say I have multiple bonds vesting and stake vested bond rewards multiple times per day or at least daily. Is the warmup period reset every time I stake anew? Is it only "warmed up" once and then I stake however I like? Does unstaking reset the warmup period? And if so do I need to execute that claim transaction every time over and over again? Maybe a more detailed description of a real world scenario would help my understanding to make an informed decision. If the UX is impacted drastically I would rather vote for no warmup period at all because the cost on the individual would be too high to impose for to me unclear benefits or problems we try to solve right now. /cc @Zeus

                I have a lot of the same questions xh3b4sd does. And a few more (see below).
                Is this 'extra' transaction a one time thing like when you first interact with a contract? Or is this every time?
                If i stake 1 OHM everyday for 200 days and then then go to unstake them 300 days later am i paying this 'extra' transaction fee 200 times each time when I stake? Or just one additional when I unstake?

                  xh3b4sd the whole idea with hades on staking is you have everyone send a "Stake" transaction, where their OHM goes to the staking contract but they receive nothing back. On this tx, they say the recipient of the sOHM. For some it will be the same address that is staking, for some it may be different. The key is that they all look the same. Those who want their sOHM in their wallet then go to "Claim" at the next epoch. The "Stake" and "Claim" transactions must be separate, otherwise it would look no different from a normal transfer (the sender and receiver are readily apparent).

                  Each time you stake you would reset the warmup. However, it's completely possible that you feel no need to claim in the first place. Claiming does not change your reward accrual, it merely transfers the sOHM into your wallet. You earn the same amount in warmup that you do after warmup. So, like in @cabanaboy1977's example, you could stake 1 OHM every day for 200 days without ever claiming the sOHM, and still have the same amount once you finally claim as if you did a claim every single day. The only difference is you do not see the sOHM in your wallet until after claiming.

                      Zeus so in my example when you get to the end of 200 you would only have to claim once (saving 200 days worth of fees)? You won't have to hit claim 200 times either 😀

                        def agree w asfi "showing stakers their accrued but unearned rewards during warm up period in the app will be important." with this, newcomers can still visualize and experience the fun of juicy rewards.

                        wonder if it makes sense to only implement warm-up for direct staking not bonding (claim and stake) since when bonding, you're already kind of subjected to a 5 day warm-up. if so, the trade-offs would be....

                        Direct Staking: warm-up, start compounding immediately but only keep the rewards if u stake past the warm-up
                        Bonding: 5-day vesting, price discount, no warm-up

                        Zeus If I understood correctly, this does not delay any kind of rewards. It just "soft-lock" for x epochs so you cannot withdraw immediately after staking and also enables HADES.

                        100% of pending and vested sOHM would receive rewards from rebases right?

                          Sting Staking

                          Reads: The act of swapping DAI for OHM close to the next Rebase, then swapping Ohm for DAI again right after receiving the rebase, in order to avoid volatility and make guaranteed gains.

                          Why is it a problem?

                          Sting Staking is a problem because it allows for scalping rewards evading (most of) the volatility. If this was profitable, more users would do it, lowering the APY for everyone effectively, while never actually being staked for a considerable period of time (subjective).

                          Why is it not a problem that needs addressing?

                          Facts before Opinion. When I run the simulation taking into account slippage and swap fees, disregarding the volatility of the price and the volatility of gas fees, here's the result:

                          It is obviously not profitable to do so, and since the current rebase will keep decreasing, it's safe to say it never will be profitable. Any profit someone could take from a short-lived investment is purely speculative and has little impact from the staking.
                          Now here's with the minimum amount of rebases needed to be profitable, 5:

                          As you may observe, you need to stay staking for a period of a little less than 48 hours in order to make a profit. And that's, again, disregarding volatility of price and volatility of gas fees (no gas fees are being deducted in the simulation).
                          We can conclude that whoever tries to stake for a profit, will need to expose himself, always, to the market volatility.

                          In Conclusion

                          This whole Warmup Proposal serves to add more complexity to the vanilla staking and (speaking personally) I'd rather have the vanilla staking actually feel Vanilla, Simple, Basic. There is no real problem being addressed, the most short-lived investments will be based on price volatility and not on rebase profitability. Time will pass, APY will shorten, and the statements I make now will still hold true.
                          Having debunked that short-lived investments are not made possible or profitable by current staking mechanisms, those mechanisms should be kept as simple as possible. Short-Lived investments will keep happening, because in the crypto space there's only one constant: that the price is always volatile, and that's ok.

                          I'm for this on the grounds of 1 week to be able to profit from the APY offered makes sense as a vetting period and considering this is typical for chains, FTM, ADA, ZIL and a few others. Granted they all vary from 5-21 days it doesn't deter new stakers it just encourages those to not chase profits, support the project long term (3,3). It can even help make them more interested in the project rather than a quick cash grab some of us may have thought in the early days of Olympus, boy were we wrong. My final thought is a minimal lock up period is acceptable, and we don't take any of the rebases / profits from them upon withdrawal as others do, we only don't allow the withdrawal of rebases if you leave during the warmup period, this is a very user friendly system in my mind.

                          The staking process at Olympus is the most elegant, most rewarding process I have encountered. The elegance lies in it's simplicity and it should remain that way.
                          I don't believe investors need a warm-up period. They stake because of the rewards - a warm-up period will not change that focus.
                          The only recommendation I have is that after unstaking, there should be a 10 day waiting period before they can withdraw their funds and during that 10 day period they do not receive rewards. This also negates the need to offer a warm-up period. The 10 day, no reward period is penalty enough. If one commits to stake for 1 year but withdraws prematurely then they would not be entitled to the additional incentives being offered for that commitment, however, they would retain the standard rewards as offered presently and be subject to the same 10 day, no reward, waiting period.
                          Regards Kev

                            kevthepeg Yikes, I think nobody needs any of that tbh. We aren't talking about locked staking and locked staking so far is not going to have a way to "withdraw prematurely". I believe you got mistaken in what was being discussed. Outside of locked staking, that proposal is atrocious, waiting 10 days to swap? Not only that can't be enforced, it makes no sense here on vanilla staking. Cheers.
                            I do agree with the no-warmup 😉

                              Having just read the discussion on Locked Staking I understood that this discussion was to consider the merits of a warm up period that would allow someone to withdraw from their commitment to stake if they wished to. Why else would you need a warm up period if you can withdraw at anytime?
                              Am I wrong?
                              Referring to the 10 day waiting period, it is common practice. I have serious investments in staking and understand the consequences of withdrawing early.