What are the current incentives to Stride validators/delegates? Is it 100% of inflationary staking rewards and other fees?
If so, I’d find it odd that Cosmos Hub validators would be paid any less than existing validators. The incremental costs to Cosmos Hub validators are nearly the same.
Personally, I’d like to see a much more details breakdown of expected costs and revenue for Cosmos Hub validators. They’d be tasked with the incremental effort and costs of running the Stride validator client.
Hey Andrew, Stride validators / delegators currently receive all staking rewards and liquid staking rewards. You can find much more detail here.
Under the proposal, Cosmos Hub validators who run binaries for ICS consumer chains would receive 15% of STRD staking rewards, plus 15% of liquid staking rewards, 15% of MEV rewards and 15% of transaction fees. Existing Stride validators would continue providing the slew of services they currently provide (running relayers, exposing public endpoints, governance involvement, code contributions, etc) and receive fewer rewards than they currently receive.
Informal Systems is drawing up a breakdown of expected costs and revenues for Cosmos Hub validators, I believe they are planning to share that in the next few months.
how would liquid staking rewards be paid out if the LSM cap is reached?
Genuine question: how do you define which validators support decentralization?
I want to integrate the price of STRD into my system. Is this the correct one Stride price today, STRD to USD live price, marketcap and chart | CoinMarketCap ?
Or will the token be migrated to a “new Stride”? Or something like aSTRD?
Got it. Do you have a rough cost breakdown of these activities as well? Because from my POV, Cosmos Hub validators operating the client will be the bulk of realized costs with only marginal revenue.
I’d like to see this discussion be more of a negotiation on what a fair fee for operating as a consumer chain should be because right now it feels too hand-wavy.
making an unregistered security ($STRD) into a consumer chain seems like an unreasonable/irresponsible risk to ATOM, the ecosystem, and its users. By distributing STRD security as rewards for staking ATOM, it exposes all participants to unwanted regulatory scrutiny.
-Investment of money: Users invest their cryptocurrency holdings to purchase Stride tokens.
-Expectation of profits: Users expect to earn staking rewards on their Stride tokens.
-Common enterprise: The Stride tokens are backed by a common pool of staked assets, and the staking rewards are distributed to token holders based on the performance of the underlying assets.
-Efforts of others: The non-custodial process, where the underlying assets are staked by/to a third-party validator, the rewards are compounded and distributed to token holders
Hi,
I am trying to understand the role of governor and why it is actually needed?
A governor does everything a validator does, except validate transactions.
Governors would be able to set an optional commission, and would vote on behalf of delegators
To my understanding, governors will not run infrastructure (aka stride consumer chain node) but because they can setup optional commission, they will receive rewards.
If this ^^ is true and I got this right? Please convince me why this is needed at all and how earth this is fair to cosmos hub validators that will actually bear all the consequences of running the node (not to mention they have no choice in ICSv1).
My second argument is that this design complicates things for no reason. Actually there is a reason that is centric and beneficial to Stride and Stride only. I can imagine that Stride wants to retain the current validator set (on stride) due to social obligation and possibly economical too (people invested money and time to run the stride and now will face no commission rewards if they are not running nodes on hub).
From the HUB validator / node operator this is additional complexity, that I also mentioned is unfair. So please tell me why do we need “governor” role and how is that beneficial to cosmos hub node operator?
Your points about governors are partially correct. The 100 cap will be arbitrary - a vestige of when Stride was a normal Cosmos chain. But it’s not quite accurate that governors will have no costs. In order to attract delegations, with will likely contribute in various ways, like validators do. To reiterate, there are many parties involved in Stride’s transition to ICS, and some of them have conflicting interests.
Validators also work for attracting the delegations, so “governors” would not do anything that isn’t already being done.
IMHO, we should keep Cosmos Hub as simple as it is possible. ICS itself makes things complicated enough, lets not add complexity because a particular chain doesn’t want to “fully migrate” due to previous setup obligations.
I just want to remind everyone here that cosmos hub is the highest (by market cap) network out of all cosmos ecosystem. Top tier validators take incredible amount of risk to onboard new features like this one, such as financial that can be counted in MM $ if something goes off.
If however for some reason everyone things “yeah, this is fine, lets complicate this more”, then lets do it. BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT do it after VALIDATORS HAVE A CHOICE to run a consumer chain. Because TODAY they don’t.
A statistical delegator will not understand, nor care the ICS internals. They look for airdrop and tokens. It’s up to us, cosmos hub validators to say whether something makes or doesn’t make sense and whether we want to run it or not. If delegator decides that “validator X” is being noncompetitive, compared to the rest then he/she can redelegate to another. But a validator HAS A CHOICE to say whether given network should or not should be running within their infrastructure.
Today THAT RIGHT for validators to decide is taken away, and that is simply unfair and dangerous for HUB.
So, yeah I derailed a bit to ICS v1, but please explain to me why “governor role” is ever needed and how is that beneficial to HUB network operator, or how is it even a “fair” design.
EDIT: If stride zone is afraid that the STRD token will loose value because the STRD is used to secure chain (currently) and after migration to ICS that token doesn’t have any value other than governance. Then I have a solution for you (stride): Don’t migrate to ICS zone and keep running as a separate chain. Honestly there is no requirement for you to be in the ICS (nor any other chain).
Thank you
So in a perfect scenario (which does not exist), decentralization should be everywhere for every stakeholders.
Developers should opensource their code.
Validators should try to get geographic decentralization.
Delegators should spread their delegations.
Projects should not stake at all or evenly to all validators.
Now back to your question, no we can not define decentralization of the validator without doixxing. But a project can help the decentralization by even delegations.
Congrats Stride team on a successful proposal.
Hey team, Why does none of the original proposal text have this revenue-sharing model?
hi all, can you please elaborate on what token will be issued as rewards?
Is it still planned to only payout STRD and ATOM as rewards? Thus, swapping all the stXXX to STRD?
I believe this is to support Atom Economic Zone and bolster liquidity in these dexes. The hub gains no direct benefit from other dexes.
stride LSDs create market inefficiency and introduce a myriad of governance and economic risks. Stride only acts as middle men in the transaction and promotes itself by claiming it will increase volume and growth throughout the ecosystem, but that is based on all the building required to correct the market inefficiency and attempting to mitigate the many risks it creates.
Instead, 1:1 LSDs can be issued by Hub validators using the LSM: freeing up the same stranded ,staked, capital for use as collateral in DeFi. staking rewards can be claimed by the bearer of the native LSD using ICA/ICQ.
a cap would still be applied by the LSM and it would have a natural peg at the same price as a circulating native ATOM, but may end up with a premium = inflation given staking rewards to bearer.
native LSDs require less liquidity than than many 3rd party LSD providers, yield more than stride, and have significantly fewer governance and economic risks. while stride’s business model is to capture value from ATOM, a native LSD is entirely value additive.
hey guys c’mon, this has been unanswered for 21 days now @Stride
This is a groundbreaking move by Stride! Joining the ATOM Economic Zone and embracing ICS is a testament to their forward-thinking approach. This strategic decision will undoubtedly amplify their global presence and economic impact. Furthermore, I can’t help but imagine the immense potential this holds for partnerships with innovative players, especially in tech. As an avid follower of advancements in the tech industry, I’m eager to see how this unfolds. Kudos to Stride for their bold step forward! If they’re looking to maximize their reach in the Android app development space, collaborating with a leading agency could be a game-changer. It would be intriguing to see how this integration takes shape in the mobile app ecosystem!
An inspiring launch, Aether looks to synergize with stride’s liquid staking derivatives, we hope to be able to follow your path soon.