[POLL] Should we consider redirecting Top-N rewards?

I tend to agree that some research needs to be tackled to address the subject of ICS rewards issues. It’s not just a matter of these rewards being insignificant for some stakers; there are broader concerns, such as the potential increase in costs associated with claiming ATOM staking rewards.

I looking forward to see the outcomes of the future studies!

1 Like

Just auto-swap it for ATOM on Neutron before it hits the distribution module and pay delegates in ATOM.

2 Likes

reduce the community tax, redirect ICS revenues to the community pool?

so validators 5x taxes on delegators to grant farm the CP, and are now discussing redirecting the dissapointing ICS rewards into the CP instead of
delegators who have seen nothing in return for the taxes validators force them to pay?

How is reducing delegator rewards, again, going to make ATOM more appealing as a staking asset?

1 Like

I imagine it needs more gaz fees to do that ?

Doesnt a portion of ICS rewards land in the CP?

It might be possible in the future. ICS/PSS chain can easily design allocation of some of their revenue sharing back to the CP. At present this isn’t the case. It may also change if we ever pass a community delegation program. This would effectively make the community pool eligible to receive staking rewards (and therefore a share of the revenues from CC (Consumer Chains).

After reading the comments here, I understand why most people prefer BTC or Memecoin.

Heh. I was under the wrong impression than. Then, Yes, im in favor of portion of the ICS rewards ending up in the CP

2 Likes

The ICS 2.0 Partial Set Security (PSS) implementation needs to be debated once it’s in effect. This system involves intricate economics and can take various paths to adoption. Depending on some circumstances, we may charge an operating fee on the Cosmos Hub, with some ICS proceeds directed to the community pool. We’re considering top-n agreements following this approach, and they might receive partial funding from the Hub, either directly or via the AADAO. This is something we’ll explore in greater details in a forthcoming post about the PSS economics.

2 Likes

First of all, HUB should first consider the situation of the majority of people (95%) instead of thinking about the multi-millionaires (5%) who can sell rewards every day!

The reason why dust is dust is that even if you have $500,000 in assets, the general daily reward you may receive is less than $1, and how many people with less than $50,000 will receive (less than $0.1 reward)

If you distribute 100,000 rewards to 1 million people, each person will only get 0.1 US dollars on average. If you accumulate this 100,000 rewards and use them for other things, you can achieve greater benefits! (Whether it is liquidity or Wait until the project has certain results before making the exchange)

I believe everyone understands the principle of piling sand into a tower, but now it is a pile of loose sand (95%) that falls to the ground and is of no use.

Faced with the plummeting ranking of Atom Hub’s inflation pressure, this is a sense of crisis, and plans to reduce inflation should be regarded as top priority.

Redirect Reward This is a necessary direction!
Passing first is the first step!
When the reward reaches a certain size, do the second step!

This is not for personal consideration but for the universe as a whole!

2 Likes

it is a strong agree for me, need more discuss about this

2 Likes

it all goes into the same 5 year old basket of “the cp needs to be managed” (imo, onchain - but there are no ((good)) tools)

In light of the recent introduction of Partial Set Security (PSS) and its new economic modeling for rewards distribution, we believe this is an ideal time to revisit our conversation to include these new perspectives. With PSS, consumers now operate on a curated subset of validators, and the rewards they distribute are allocated exclusively among the delegators of these active validators. This creates an intricately granular system of supply and demand for security offerings. It is important to remember that PSS includes two variable models: the Opt-in system and the Top-N, which Neutron and Stride have transitioned to. These alternative models offer distinct economic frameworks, where a set of validators is required to operate to ensure that a specific percentage of ATOM security is replicated on the consumer.

If you want to learn more about PSS, feel free to read our comprehensive post about this new economic model: PSS Financial Model.

To reassess a fruitful context for the “should we consider redirecting ICS rewards?” discussion, we propose limiting the scope to Top-N chains only. The Opt-in model is a free-market approach, whereas Top-N is more community-oriented. In our review, we predicted that Top-N would likely be restricted to core public-good infrastructure and strong political hub alignment. We believe the community should consider the possibility of changing the ICS-TopN redirection model.

Thanks for reading,
Govmos.

2 Likes

YES. Makes sense. Receiving 20 micro dust positions worth less than a cent is useless and messy.

Opt-In chains will have a smaller vals set (+inactive vals?), customized rewards system so better to not touch it and let them do their things. For Top-N chains I do think it’s a great idea as it concerns all validators and so all stackers.

An integrated dust sweeper would be fine but as a Ledger user I can say it can be fastidious. For example the Stride dust sweeper still forces you to review 25 pages by assets I sweep, so if I sweep 7 StTokens to stride I have to review like 25 pages X 7 in one Tx …

Plus I guess you pay more fees if you sweep small amounts compared to a big one. So for me it makes sense to redirect ALL ICS rewards to a pool (Sub-DAo), swap to ATOM and USDC and wait for it to reach a certain amount to automatically redistribute to stakers.

If in many years the hub feel like using those funds for something els they could still propose something to governance but for the first iteration we should just prefix a certain amount to reach and wait.

1 Like

Hello, Govmos. Thank you for this post.

Wasn’t one of the main point participating, especially from a delegator’s perspective, in a proof-of-stake system, to help decentralize the network by taking on “skin/stake in the game,” to help ensure the chain is secured? Incentivizing any/all participants to convert as Stakers instead of passive “Holders.”

Though validators should absolutely be compensated for their work, from how things currently operate, validators aren’t required to bond N amount of their own atoms when serving - unless i’m wrong?

We don’t mean to decide where to send the funds nor what to do with them, but accumulating and using this in conjunction with the forthcoming votePowerTax in order to support small validators is one potential outcome. For now, this proposal simply aims to gauge initial reactions from the community, serving as a basis to determine whether a comprehensive discussion should be pursued. Should this direction be deemed feasible, we will welcome all suggestions regarding the process. As of the publication of this post, the poll indicates a 66% approval rating from 76 participants. We will not proceed until a minimum of 100 individuals have contributed to the poll.

3 Likes

Why would one sweep the funds into ATOM which is guaranteed to lose -10% per year due to its inflation schedule? ATOM hasn’t been able to maintain below 10% inflation ever since they put the 7% min to 20% max and 67% bonding ratio parameters in production. Even now the only reason inflation is 10% is because the max parameter was reduced to 10%.

I don’t think it is very likely the ATOM community to vote for further inflation cuts. This is a community that either doesn’t understand supply and demand dynamics very well or is simply full boiler room penny stock dumper artists.

We can swap to USDC if the community prefers, I proposed ATOM so we don’t add another sell pressure. The main point is to ensure that

  • Funds are send to a different pool that the community pool
  • Can’t be access
  • Are redistributed to stakers once it reaches the targeted amount

So long as this isn’t a means to further echo/manipulate into existence another centralized governing body w/o having disclosed clear conflicts of interest, considering the current alleged state of ICF/Informal, i’ll remain curious to see how the broader community reacts to this discussion!

*Edit: Will remain strongly opposed to utilizing governance to indirectly reward those who hold Atom passively vs. those who stake. This post also seems to faintly echo advocates of Prop#848, and we all see how thats working out.

Nonetheless, always appreciative of individuals/teams initiating active discussion before any teams/actions are formed, so thank you in that regard, Govmos.

2 Likes