For SAFT investors and the team there is a 1 year cliff and then non linear vesting.
This proposal suggests that both rewards from RAFT staking and unlocks for SAFT Investors and the team change to a linear emissions schedule.
We believe that by introducing non linear emissions the main effect is that a larger amount of RAFT tokens will unlock in a shorter period of time towards the end of year 2 and year 3. By having linear distribution of emissions these are spread out more evenly, whilst also allowing Tempus Dao members to more actively participate in RAFT Dao from earlier on.
Given the fact Tempus Dao has been building RAFT for a year and emissions are released over 2 years for stakers, we believe that this temporal element already aligns rewards with long term believers of the protocol. As well as this by linearly distributing too SAFT investors and the team, disproportionately large unlocks will be avoided towards the end of year 3, and those who were the earliest supporters of Tempus will have a larger impact on governing RAFT Dao from earlier on.
On the current emissions schedule Temp stakers receive 25% Raft allocation by end of year 1 and
100% by end of year 2.
On the proposed emissions schedule Temp stakers would receive 50% Raft allocation by end of year 1 and 100% by end of year 2.
On the current emissions schedule SAFT investors and the team receive 15% Raft allocation by end of year 2 and 100% by end of year 3. (1 year cliff until first RAFT unlocked)
On the proposed emissions schedule SAFT investors and the team would receive 50% Raft allocation by end of year 2 and 100% by end of year 3. (1 year cliff still applies)
Please let us know your insights, concerns, and preferences in the comments below.
I totally agree with this proposal. I don’t think non-linear allocation is efficient.
This is not good for Temp and Raft. That’s why there are no new demand for Temp.
I understood ‘1Temp = 1.5Raft’ is minimum and more .
But it means maximum when 24-month pull staking.
Who would be attracted to Temp Staking program if they knew this?
It should be distributed linearly so that the Temp holder can receive immediate purchase(hold) effects.
I am totally against this proposal myself. The current system is designed to reward long-term stakers which is more important than short-term price action in my opinion. But, if the majority of TEMP holders agree with this I don’t mind changing the current one.
However, would be nice to see some ideas on how to technically implement this. Which contracts to use, how to migrate from the current staking program, and so on…
I am afraid that the implementation of this would take a lot of time, and then stakers in the current program would complain. Especially after getting their multipliers.
Hi Mijovic,
Thanks for the response. I understand that the idea behind the current design is to support longerterm stakers, but longerterm stakers are also rewarded by linear rewards, just evenly over time, and as the staking duration is 2 years I would say that is long term stakers! As well as this, the current system has the issue of at a later time discencentivising new participants from staking (which we dont want to do) as they would be earning at a significantly lower rate (0.01x multiplier compared to up to 7x) than anyone who had staked. I agree with incentivizing longer term participants in the DAO but not in dicincentiving people joining at a later date who may have just found Temp. I think growing the number of the members of the DAO is beneficial for all!
In terms of the technical implementation, a linear emissions schedule has been done a huge number of times in DeFi and the technical difficulty of implementing this non linear approach must have been much harder. Migrating to something done so many times in DeFi is going to be much easier than it was to build the current mechanism! In terms of current stakers complaining, I can not speak for everyone but missing out on the current 0.01x multiplier is unlikely to dicensentivize people that much but I guess the vote will show that. As the first person staking in the current set up, I will have the highest multiplier and I for one would be fine forgoing this.
Also do you admit the benefit of the longer term Temp holders getting to have a larger participation in Raft governance early on? (where the early decisions made in a Dao are often crucial)
It should be clear whats more beneficial for long-term stakers. You’re right when you’re talking about just taking more amount of Raft than just short-term stakers. But reward is a more complex concept. The Reward is not determined solely by the amount of Raft. Because the reward is not clear due to a combination of reasons (increased total distribution amount, price of Raft and Temp, etc.).
Nonlinear reward certainly has an advantage when compared to short-term stakers alone. But that’s a disadvantage for early stakers(now Temp holders or potential Temp consumers).
Temp expected that there will be a demand for temp when launching the Raft token. But the reality is that there is no demand for temp. Sadly, due to low compensation and falling prices, existing holders are also selling Temp.
Of course, switching to linear reward is unlikely to create immediate demand. But if don’t even lower the entry hurdles, the Temp will only become less attractive to new entrants over time in Nonlinear structures, and existing holders won’t feel attractive to them.
And when it comes to technology, I don’t know how to implement this technically. Because I’m not a developer
If it is difficult to develop in a linear structure, or Holder can’t steak for a long time, this proposal means nothing.
But it’s funny that if holder wants to make a proposal, The proposed holder needs to develop it.
Moving my answer from Discord and expanding it with more questions that are essential to be answered.
a linear emissions schedule has been done a huge number of times in DeFi and the technical difficulty of implementing this non linear approach must have been much harder. Migrating to something done so many times in DeFi is going to be much easier than it was to build the current mechanism!
This is a pretty strong statement and I’d like to see some concrete examples for both the linear vesting and the migration, as well as the results of migration. Can you count concrete examples of ‘a huge number of times in DeFi’ and ‘Migrating to something done so many times in DeFi is going to be much easier’? Otherwise, the voters won’t have an exact sense to vote for/against, but some arbitrary statement that may or may not be true.
As a developer, I simply cannot accept that any sort of migration will be easy without reading some details about it. How do you plan to transition rewards? What is the migration schedule? Is it technically possible (e.g. does the current staking contract allow it)? What about other projects (e.g. Nostra)? Will the DAO be ready to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a new audit when we know that some of the members of the community were strongly against spending 200k USDC for bootstrapping RAFT? What are the short and long-term consequences of emitting a greater number of RAFT than expected? Is it a good proposal for the holders to dump RAFT even more and therefore force the DAO to double or triple the amount of incentives needed for the project’s successful growth?
As you can see, there are multiple hidden costs and I have a feeling that this is more packed as a give-free-money proposal. You’re asking for more active participation in the governance (e.g. having more RAFT tokens) but at the same time huge majority of people who claimed the token dumped it instead of staking and therefore ignored the governance aspect of it.
To be clear in the end, nobody is asking the OP to implement anything (that’s what’s the elected service contractor for), but some technical check is required in order to qualify this as a proposal, not a wish.
From everyone’s feedback except the team both in discord and on this forum it seems people do want linear emissions. Obviously a vote would show this.
Having gone through the contract it appears that the rewards deposited can not be removed. And the emissions schedule cant be changed in such a way which would allow linear emissions, so this proposal is not possible to implement.
Important to note that any future tokens launched by Temp which are emitted to Temp holders while this Raft emissions program is going on will HAVE to have the same type of emission schedule, the only variable is over what time period the total emissions is.
