Option for Higher APY for locking TIME

1. General Discussion
#30

I agree that people would feel cheated if APY dropped after locking, that’s why I think that if this is implemented, there should be a disclaimer that says “hey APY could drop don’t be mad”

but I do think that boosting incentive for those who decide to lock their funds is a fantastic idea. How that’d be coded is beyond me, but I’m sure Daniele and the team are smart enough to figure it out. Forced stability is healthy for the protocol.

What would also be cool is like an “emergency” button where if you no longer want your funds to be locked and you’ve already locked them, you’d just take a 5-10% fee for jailbreaking, which would go into the treasury and benefit those who are still staking.

3 Likes
#31

looking is precisely what gives the protocol the stability to know that by any chance no holder will remove/sell tokens in the long run

#32

i thinking that is a great idea. I will suggest applying something similar to what Curve 4 years locking period have done and study the incentives they have/are currently being capable of providing to token holders to calculate a reasonable APY for the long run.

1 Like
#33

An interesting concept indeed for the Wonderland ecosystem. I have some questions I wouldn’t mind discussing regarding this topic of higher APY % for locking TIME.

(1) How or what would be the best way to distribute rewards for “locked” TIME/MEMO?

(2) How or when would those rewards be paid out?

If high value(%) of TIME holders were to “lock” funds and suddenly at the end of a locked period, they were to be withdrawn, (3)what would be in place to stabilize the market?

(4) How would the treasury maintain the higher % for the “locked” funds if the market were to dip low enough to create a cascading liquidity avalanche for those leveraging their TIME/MEMO?

(5) Should the devs consider a dedicated stats UI for displaying transparent “locked” funds?

(6) If implemented, could we vote to dedicate a certain % of early withdrawal penalties to be rewarded back to the community?

I actually have more questions, but as it’s my first time posting, I decided to limit myself to these six. These questions are intended to advance the discussion of the original topic and not to be taken negatively. So if it reads like I’m trying to “poke holes” in this idea, I’m not, I’m just curious.

Thanks everyone!

#34

but what happens if everyone then decide to stake? How sustainable would it be? Probably less

#35

Check out this thread.

BOOSTED REBASE REWARDS for long term stakers - 1. General Discussion - Wonderland Governance Forum (wonderlandforum.xyz)

#36

I really like this idea.

#37

I like the idea of the emergency exit button that comes with a sizeable penalty.

Additionally, I think that the disclaimer could also be mitigated by simply using equations to justify the APY for those locking for a longer period of time. I.e. 3 months = 1.25x current APY, 6 months = 1.5x current APY, a year 2.5x… you get the idea.

IMO we would need to also explore a mechanism to prevent people from frontrunning the dates of unlocking large amounts. For example, if an individual locks up 100m (if 100m is too small for this example, imagine a larger amount, 1B, 10B, etc) for 6 months, many traders could get the idea to sell pre-emptively, which could result in cascading liquidations. No idea how we could around this, but I figure restricting transparency into this metric could be a way to accomplish this.

#38

Agree 1,000,000,000% if you adjust it to
95000 APY for 30 days
120,000 APY for 3 months
175,000 APY for 6 months and beyond

This will get people to lock their money into TIME for sure. But the codes need to be adjust too and not letting people to trade TIME before and after the rebase just to get the rebase and leave.

2 Likes
#39

Rather than lock people in give them something to aim for. After 6 months you hit double APY (as an example). That way you feel in control of your money, it’s not locked. But you still get rewarded more for holding longer term.

3 Likes
#40

I totally support this. Long term HODlers… come one this is a no brainer.

#41

I think something along these lines would be beneficial. It’s a new project, and the stability that an APY reward would give to those who hold for longer would do much to promote it, and thus the confidence of investors. However, a ‘lock in’ period may deter potential investors and I am a firm believer that one’s own money should be readily accessible, and on that basis I would prefer something more along the lines as suggested by @Dtm

2 Likes
#42

So after holding for 6 months their rebase would increase from (example only) 0.06% per rebase to 0.0663% per rebase? That would increase APY from 69k% to about 140k%. Is that what you mean?

#43

No, after you commit to 6 months, you would start earning per 140% bracket in your example immediately, for the duration of 6 months.

1 Like
#44

I think a 14 day locking period for anyone should be okay

#45

But wouldn’t something like a week or two week term make sense to push out the wrong people to invest

#46

So, you get locked in? … That’s not what the commenter was saying that I was replying to. Their comment said they wouldn’t lock people in.

Personally, I’m fine with a lock in option. I’m in for at least a year come hell or high water.

Or perhaps even better, a monthly “loyalty reward” of an increase of X% over whatever the current rebase is for however many tokens you’ve had staked. That way the APY could go down organically, as intended, but you would still get a reward over newbies for staking longer.

#47

I don’t think a mandatory locking period is the way to go. If people want to jump in and out we’ll just keep collecting their fees. Works for me.

I’m ok with a voluntary lock in period though.

#48

i dont know if this is good or bad, but what i know is that this could become a problem in itself, like, how would this interact if you are leveraged? if you want to pay some of the debt would you be able? it woudl make sense? also, the incentive of holding because of the huge APR and APY its already there.
Also minters, minters are necessary to the ecosystem, if minting becomes irrelevant because on the long term its better to lock their tokens then less people would mint, and how would that interact? people arent leaving as of now, (at least not much people) people were getting liquidated, and all that price inflated droped just like the market bubble of 2008, with people leveraging his houses and banks giving money without any sort of information of how things worked at the time because of profits, here its not like this, i do believe things are working fine and i believe there is no need of anymore rewards, the changes that needs to be done arent making new or more rewards for the stakers

1 Like
#49

I’m fine with a lockup period, but I’m not sure how the logistics/coding of it would work. Let’s say you lock up $1000 for two weeks (or a year, or whatever), and then half way into that period you decide to dollar cost average into more. would that reset the clock? Would you have multiple different lockup periods?

I’ve been in since very early in the project, so I have a vested interest in HODLers getting more rewards, but I don’t think a system like that would encourage new investors, which is what will grow the treasury overall.

TL;DR: Lockup period is fine. Clarify the staking rewards for any long term HODLers. Incentivize new investors.

1 Like