BOOSTED REBASE REWARDS for long term stakers

1. General Discussion
#1

Hello guys and gals,
So I’ve been reading posts for several hours and have noticed that everybody wants more rewards the longer they stake, but nobody wants to lock their TIME without guaranteed APY, which is kinda understandable. So I’ve got you, I’ve read through several posts and about 200 comments and I want to put forward, I hope and organized, idea that can be discussed.

Basic idea:

  • So, in order to incentivize people to stake their TIME, an new variable can be introduced, Rebase Booster. This variable would scale up the APY of TIME as time pass.
  1. Minimum boost 0%
  2. Max boost 36.525% ( max 1 year, after that no more increase in boost)
  3. Boost is increased every week (eg. Sunday after last rebase) by 0.7% per week. On first week, depending when you start staking boost is given between 0.1% and 0.7% (0.1% per day)
  4. The funds from the treasury will not be used to fund this increased rebase, and the total rebase will stay the same. Only the distribution of the rebased tokens will be different, where stakers with higher boost will have a higher share of the rebase.

Unstaking:

  • Whenever somebody wants to unstake, the Rebase Booster will be reduced by the % of the total unstaked time.
    e.g. Mr. Frog has staked for 30 weeks, and has 21% Boost, then he decides to unstake half of his position. Now he has only 10.5% Boost. If he would unstake only 20% then his Boost would’ve decreased by 21%*0.2=4.2%, leaving him 16.8% boost.
    So the Boost decreases proportionally with the unstaked share.

Adding to the stake:

To counter people that would want to benefit of the boost without large commitment, we apply the same idea with slightly different math for multiple stakings.

  • Whenever someone wants to add to their stake the their Booster will decrease by the formula:
    NB = B * (1 - S / T)
    where:
    NB = New Booster value
    B = Old Booster value
    S = Amount of TIME added to the stake
    T = Total TIME after staking

so a couple examples:
adding 100% to the stake results in Booster * (1-100%/200%) = Booster*(1-1/2) = New Booster
adding 200% to the stake results in Booster * (1-200%/300%) = Booster*(1-2/3) = New Booster
adding 300% to the stake results in Booster * (1-300%/400%) = Booster*(1-3/4) = New Booster
you get the point.

P.S.

  1. The total rebase is not going to change. Only the share of the rebase is going to change based on the Booster. So the APY will stay dynamic, moreover there is no need in lock periods.

  2. The Boost is applied on each rebase, so a boost of 30% on the current 0.6% rebase would result in a boosted rebase of 0.78%.

  3. If we would apply the this algorithm on the current rebase% of the protocol, we would start see a decrease in the BASE rebase rewards and the BASE APY, but the Boosted rebase is still going to be higher then current rebase. ( I hope you understand what I mean.)

Now for the PROBLEMS with this idea.

  • The problem with this idea is WMEMO. There is no way to fit WMEMO in this equation, since it is scaling with the rebase, and if we make the rebases different across stakers then WMEMO can’t scale anymore accordingly.

I would really like to hear some devs opinion about this issue and if it could be solved in some way or another.

But if WMEMO scaling cannot be solved, then there is no way in increasing the rebase rewards in anyway ( not by NFT, not by locking up, nada), but only by using the reserve funds, which is a really bad idea and it will only hurt the project in the long run.

P.P.S.

I just want to add this guys. We do not need hype. In the long run it doesn’t work. Organic, stable growth is the best, this means reliability and maturity.

Peace, frogs!

39 Likes
#2

The most comprehensive proposal I’ve seen to date. This has my full support

4 Likes
Option for Higher APY for locking TIME
#3

And exactly how do you plan to pay for this increase in APY? All you said was that it wasn’t coming out of the treasury.

5 Likes
#4

Very interesting thread overall. I really enjoyed this concept in my first read-through, but as I wondered about potential outcomes, I’m not sure this concept would be better without more insight from more knowledgeable members. Not that I care personally about taxes, but wouldn’t this boosted rebase indicate a heavier capital gains tax at each rebased reward?

Would this be a separate “Rebase Booster” pool?

How would a concept like this be affected by whales moving funds in and out around rebase epochs?

Would this attract new or existing TIME holders?

I would also be interested in seeing an excel calculator in order to play around with some potential scenarios.

1 Like
#5

The total amount of rebase rewards is going to stay the same, The share is going to be different for stakers. For example a staker that staked for 1 year are going to have 0.7% rebase because of the boost, but someone that entered today will have flat 0.5% rebase because there is no boost. On average, there is going to be the same 0.6% rebase, but it will be redistributed differently.

1 Like
#6

These are all good questions.
Some of them I could answer right away. This tactics is only make rebase “hopping” less appealing since the base rebase APR is going to decrease. Also this shouldn’t affect tax calculations, since there is going to be number of transactions into your wallet, if you hold memo, just different amount of memo than others. And I don’t think it is necessary to have a booster pool as well, but of course somebody on the team should speak about the implementation of this strategy, and if it can be viable.

As I said, my main concern would be the WMEMO token, and how it would scale with this kind of rebase strategy. And I would like to hear the opinion of somebody on the dev team about that.

#7

Yeah, that’s not going to work.

  1. Rebasing won’t be around in 12 months. We will be revenue share by then

  2. But let’s say rebase is still around in a year. You could have too many people “boosted” when compared to new holders. Which would mean new holders would have to have a NEGATIVE APY in order to offset the boosted stakers in order to maintain your 0.6%. Therefore you would probably never get any new inventors.

1 Like
#9
  1. With this strategy it is impossible to have negative APY.
  2. And even when the revenue share period will kick in, the same formula can be applied to that as well.
#10

There is a lot to consider with this. Right now there are about 190,000 stakers of MEMO who would be roughly the same in terms of level of boost. To keep the overall average rebase at 0.6% what are you going to do? if the weighted average skews towards those with a higher boost, you have to make up for it with getting a lot more new stakers at once or severely cutting back on new staker APY. And again…it could be negative to get the average back down to 0.6% depending on the number of new stakers you have.

195,000 stakers get 0.78 APY
20,000 new stakers would need to get around (0.2)% APY
Formula below:
image

And I think I’m being generous with the 20k new stakers. So there’s really no incentive for people to jump in this. And this is kinda best case scenario. And that average will get more skewed as you add new people, they start getting boost, raising the average.

2.With revenue share, the amount of revenue you get will be based on the shares of TIME you own. Same as with a stock dividend. I imagine the DAO would operate like a REIT would it be required to pay back a certain amount of profit in the form of revenue per month/quarter/year or whatever. I don’t see your model working for that.

There is a misconception that TIME is losing people. This is wrong. Number of stakers has gone up. You can see and track this by viewing the MEMO contract. We are close to 200k. Couple of weeks ago we were 150k.

2 Likes
#11

Hey, I’m sorry, maybe I haven’t been clear in the original post. But you didn’t get the idea right.
You cannot have negative APY with this strategy. There is always going to be a positive total rebase reward. So now we have the rebase of 0.6%. Lets assume that we start right now with this new strategy and everybody starts staking at the same time, everyone holds their stake, and there are no new stakers coming. After 1 year the base rebase would drop to 0.44% but everyone would have the BOOST of 36.5% which brings their BOOSTED rebase to 0.6% ( you follow my thought, right?). So now when 1 new person decides to stake his/her time, he would get 0.44% rebase, where everyone else who staked for one year has 0.44 + 0.44*0.365 = 0.6 . This is assuming that the rebase is going to continue at the same rate as now.

#12

You are too focused on the number 0.78%, that was just an oversimplified example based on 2 people that are staking.
Imagine you have a pie every 8 hours, you distribute this pie to everybody that stays in line.
So you are going to distribute slightly bigger pieces to the people that stayed in line more than others, but everyone is still going to get a piece.

1 Like
#13

Yeah, that’s fine, but you’re saying you wouldn’t even start getting a bonus until THOUSANDS of newcomers come. Those newcomers would get a lower APY than what we have now, offsetting the boosted users APY. Doesn’t seem like a great marketing idea to get newcomers. But they would eventually get boosted up adding more to that end of the spectrum. So you would need even MORE new stakers to to offset, because you just added a ton of boosted users.

This just doesn’t work.

I understand how it works with your pie. See above

2 Likes
#14

Yes, that is true, but lets be realistic, not everyone that is staked right now will stay staked for 1 whole year. And the point is, that if newcomers would come now, the APY would drop anyways, because thats the way it works, more mouths to feed, less food per person, That works with every project. What the strategy that I described does, is rewarding the ones that staked for 1 year with more reward than the ones that stake for 1 day, or 1 week and then sell.

#15

More new stakers to offset what? The APY drop ?
New stakers always means lower APY, doesnt matter if there is boost or no boost.
To increase the APY people need to be minting. And if there is going to be boosted rebase and normal rebase, minting is going to be more profitable, so it will bump up the base rebase and boosted rebase as well.

#16

Can we write a proposal on this and get it implemented. I’m 100% onboard with this.

3 Likes
#17

The rebase won’t be around for one year anyway. We will stop the ponzu minting and rebase, cap supply, invest the treasury, and begin the revenue sharing. Much sooner than 12 months from now. The rebase phase is meant for bootstrapping liqudity. Not long term incentives. It causes dilution and eventually rebases to single digits. That’s the OHM model that was never the plan to follow. So keep that in mind.

To even get this boosted APY you would need thousands of new investors to join all at once. Otherwise, a trickle affect would just cause the weight of boosted users to continue to grow at a speed in which the APY would never get boosted. Considering where we’re at with staked users right now. Our product is sticky. We have seen the number of staked wallets grow; in fact we have almost tripled in one month from 72k to 195k stakers. So your assumption that people won’t be around to capitalize on this boost seems to be very misguided.

And if you get these thousands of new comers, you would have to convince these newcomers they would have to take a lower APY than what’s currently offered promising them we’ll get thousands of more new comers to boost their APY, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Way too complicated and even more ponzu than the current ponzu.

See above as to the problem with this idea addressing your question.

2 Likes
#18

This is the kind of encouragement for the hodlers as it will set a new standard in engagements and building a true community that believes in the project for long term.

You have my support!

2 Likes
#19

Bro sorry, I couldn’t write more replies yesterday, had to wait 24 hours.

To this point, newcomers do not boost APY. This strategy can be applied in the same way for revenue sharing as well as for the rebase. So when rebase stops. we just switch to revenue sharing with the same formula for boosting. There is nothing complicated there. I would tell you that when rebase stops, this strategy will work even better, because there will not be the WMEMO issue to deal with.

#20

Yes, newcomers don’t boost APY. But you’ll never be able to boost long term stake holders and maintain an average APY without someone else getting a smaller piece of the pie i.e. new stakers

If you have more long term stake holders than newcomers, you’ll never be able to pay out this promised boost. I did the math.

Your problem is we are 200k wallets deep and you would need a lot new wallets or else you risk a higher APY, faster dilution, and faster move towards revenue share.

In terms of using this kind of model for revenue share, just silly. No company that pays dividends pays based on time invested.

Really not worth it. Enjoy you’re 10% every 5 days. Stop being greedy. Stop worrying about people trading around rebase. No impact on you in terms of dilution and immaterial movements of price. Sifu and Mods don’t care. I’ll leave you with some quotes from Sifu

More on discord. Just search Sifu

2 Likes
#21

That is the whole point from this system, that long term stakers get larger share of rewards than short term stakers.

You always can pay this boost. The boost is in respect to the ones without boost. Now you either trolling, or purposely ignoring this.

Now I have to tell you that this line doesn’t make sense at all. The dilution does not depend on how many wallets there are but on the amount of new TIME minted. So you clearly don’t know what are you talking about.

This one is funny. Aren’t crypto projects trying to solve the problems with centralized finance, or they wanna copy that ? :smiley:

This is not the point of this thread… I guess there is no point to explain a concept to somebody that cannot grasp at least the idea behind it, and is so opinionated that can’t think critically nor constructively.

If you don’t like an idea you can always vote against it at the vote. NO NEED TO BE A TROLL.