[Discussion] Proof Of Commitment- Fundamentally Change Staking for MTA

[Valon89x]

Given the community response to the emission of the MTA tokens via staking and the VC token release, apart from other rewards, I would like to propose a new staking system.

The MTA token is suffering from A lack of incentive beyond simply staking the token and receiving MTA as a reward, while also holding voting power.

In my opinion this is only the first step of what should have been a multi tier staking system.

I propose that we fundamentally change the staking system for MTA to help solve the inflation issue and as well keep incentive for users to strive for Governance.

My idea is to have users stake X amount of MTA as a proof of commitment. After a certain amount of time, the user would be rewarded the commitment token or perhaps maybe even a commitment NFT that would actually be tied to voting rights while also needing to be supported by holding MTA.

That token would then need to be staked again to actually take part in votes and governance. This would also seriously reduce the circulation of MTA and offer a secondary rewards system. One that requires real commitment to achieve, Making it far more valuable.

The reason this needs to be done, in my opinion, is because there must be more value tied to the MTA token in a tiered way otherwise, the fully diluted circulation is always going to be an economic factor for the MTA market. As well we may constantly be trying to find ways to shift around rewards from other already established reward pools.

What I’m proposing is an entirely new value layer for the MTA platform.

Using a single tier staking system allows for people to Simply Farm votes, and if we are going to have governance as a decentralized community we need executive branches.

There is real value in commitment. Again the MTA token is in a way the first level of this proof of commitment which then gives you voting power in my opinion it’s self-defeating because there’s only one tear.

The model isnt my creation either, the dual staking system as a proof of commitment that gives you the ability to access a secondary part of the network, comes from Darwinia & KTON.

I really do think something like this could bring real Governance and executive value into MTA and donit in a way that grows the ecosystem for the better.

Love to here all of your thoughts, I’m in the discord as Valerian if you want to chat there as well.

Cheers

Jawad

Semper Fi.

[mamedai]

As with restructuring proposal, the first step is to examine the feasibility and man hours.

also need to make sure "should we delay other things to make it a priority?

[derc]

I’d love to hear more thoughts and discussions about this!

[mamedai]

The complaints currently noted are inflation and increased utility of the MTA.
I’m going to post the polar opposite as a brainstorming exercise.

The basic premise:

1. the MTA utility changes will be made as “part of Phase 2”.
2. If necessary, make it a “Phase 1.5” to reduce man-hours.
3. Give full consideration to improving the value of the MTA when planning the “Phase 2” re-collateralization. If “mStable creates assets that are stronger than the sum of their parts” can be properly realized, this proposal isnt necessary.

Proposal:

1. abolish “SAVE”.
2. distribute profits as follows.
3. Return the profits to the MTA staker.
4. Storage to the Treasury.

The “3” return would come in the form of a repurchase of the MTA from the market, the same model as the YVault. This is more efficient than the Burn model and is allocated preferentially to those who have staked for the long term.
Stop the current stake model would be costly, so we will continue and modify it.

The “4” is used to pay for future development and promotion. be Hire a good developer to make the project permanent.

Disadvantages:
Currently, “SAVE” has $7M in deposits.
If it is discontinued, a repel is expected, and TVL may also decrease.
If you want to go for a soft landing, you could take a “stop additional deposits to Save”.

and, If the mechanism was that the funds only deposited into SAVE were invested and generated APYs, this proposal makes no sense.

[Valon89x]

I think that if anything the team should finish the current stuff in the pipeline and then assess its potential man hours and other resources that would be needed for something like this.

[Valon89x]

Most of it is happening in Discord at the moment

[Valon89x]

This ultimately was a base concept and @itsAsecret616 has really built out the nuts and bolts here in this post.

[Discussion] Proposal to Restructure

After reading Valon89x proposal for Proof of Commitment concept, I would like to propose and expanded idea. The original concept (Proof Of Commitment- Fundamentally Change Staking for MTA) proposed to add a 2nd Tier Value (T2V) via locking MTA rewards. Essentially, if you earn MTA as an LP to sell interest, go for it. But if you want actual voting rights, there would be a lock period on rewards before they mature into vested voting rights represented by what he called mCommit. Expanded propo…

I’d encourage anyone to follow up with that post from here.

[shubidoobi]

I think we are looking at this in only the short term, and this is a problem that will disappear after the distribution of MTA is finished, which is going to be happening in less than 4 years if I’m not mistaken.

If you look at current successful implementations of governance, mStable already has a very advanced system, giving voters an equal proportional say in voting power, while at the same time gaining rewards for doing so.

Those that are only in it for the rewards, so be it. I actually propose to lower the rewards for staking significantly to disincentivize staking only for the sake of the rewards. We are giving out large capacities of MTA to stakers, whereas actual voters are disincentivized by doing more work for the same amount.

To go along your line of thinking, I’d propose to make voting an actual requirement in a Proof Of Active Participation rather than commitment, as you’re already commited by locking your stake.

This will incentivize participation, and punish passive staking. I’d also make all rewarded MTAs vested for at least 1 year to further disincentivize dumping on the open market.

Lastly, I would also start implementing a time-based reputation system for wallets for the longer term, giving more say to people that actively participated in the protocol for x time or x votes, which could also just mathematically be included in the current time-lock.

My 2cts :))

[derc]

Agree with @shubidoobi and we need more active governors. I believe we need to incentivize the right outcomes for the long-term growth of the protocol.

I am not sure how proof of participation can be implemented, but my thoughts are along the lines of MTA rewards only if you participate in governance votes

[mamedai]

I agree.

However, I think we need another perspective.
It is that those who lock for long periods of time should be rewarded.
The people who locked MTA are believe in the long-term success of the project.

I don’t think we need the intense inflation ex.Bond, but those who lock at the moment and participate constructively in governance and share in the risk should be eligible for rewards.

The same goes for the early investors who voluntarily agree to stake. They have made the decision not to sell in this situation.

Based on the discussion so far, it seems to me that it would be appropriate in terms of implementation man-hours to set a reward with a lock period for addresses that sign vmta in snapshot.

It encourages constructive contributions to governance and re-staking.

(Its just idea.)