RJ (replyor) on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

RJ (replyor) pfp

okeee, i did a thing. i staked. 🤷‍♂️ i'm not happy about it, but i'm at peace with it. or so i tell myself today. i staked what i earned last season. that degen came from the degen fam, and it somehow felt right to put it back into the community even if i disagree with the current state of things. i've been impressed with the way jacek and the degen team have been open to suggestions on how to improve the system, so hopefully they iterate quickly as usual. most importantly, they must find a way to address the number-go-down issue. the tipping game is a GAME and when people play games they like to go up the leaderboard, not stake a bunch of money and see their allowance go down every day. and that's the only direction it can go for 90 days! you don't need to have a masters in psychology to know that it is demoralizing to watch your allowance go down literally every day. but what to do?!? continued...

18 replies

2 recasts

21 reactions

RJ (replyor) pfp

-re-prioritize openrank. either with additional points in the bonus pool or by reducing the impact of the staked amount. personally, i like a 50/50 split. i can somewhat understand the need to prioritize staking, but not the need to abandon openrank and engagement as a factor. quality engagement is too critical. -guarantee an allowance at the time of staking. you stake an amount, this is your allowance for the 90 day lock period. maybe this isn't viable and there needs to be a floor instead? for example, when you stake, the allowance is 2K. the floor says it won't go below 1.5K this lock period. -scale up the allowance pool and max allowance as the locked amount grows. the distribution pool shouldn't be finite. -cap the % that any one staker can impact the pool. this is supposed to be fun, no reason to let bad actors and selfish degens reduce the already small/shrinking allowance pool. -redistribute openrank bonuses of non-stakers so its not wasted ty 🙏

7 replies

0 recast

14 reactions

Blue Cockatoo pfp

Interesting ideas. I wrote a query today to figure out if there is a way to fix things by adjusting the allowance and caps numbers and the only way to do it with those is by capping the amount staked which is impossible now that everything is locked. So they are going to have to bring something like the social rank back in to give non-whales some kind of relief... especially since everything is stuck for 3 months now. That's a LONG time to not be able to flexibly fix mistakes. https://warpcast.com/bluecockatoo/0x5fdf5770

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

RJ (replyor) pfp

what's worse is that the lock extends every damn day. it's not a 90 day problem until the stop allowing locks. what if they adjusted the algo to not look at a percents % of the pool beyond the max contribution? it'd piss off the people who locked big amounts, mainly the 15M person, but couldn't you just like...work something out with them? plus, that's prolly jacek lol

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Blue Cockatoo pfp

Yes, that is what that query I linked is exploring. If you set a cap on staking, then overstaking would be fixed. Too late to do that actually now, but you could set a “virtual” cap on it (just not consider the overstaking amount for allowance calculation). I found that around 800k was a good spot for getting rid of overstaking, at least with the total amount locked yesterday. It wouldn’t hurt the overstakers at all since they already hurt themselves locking up more than needed to get the max allowance and robbed themselves of other investment opportunities. But it could help everyone else.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

RJ (replyor) pfp

I'm not so sure you want to stop overstaking. My thought process: Staking a large number still protects the person from the pool getting bigger and bigger and needing to restake. Obv 15M is overkill, but staking a few mil isn't crazy if you think the pool is going to keep getting bigger and bigger. You ALREADY need over a mil for the top allowance and it's day 3, so preparing for 30-60+ days from now isn't unreasonable. But if you solve the issue in the allowance algo, then it's not a harm to the community anymore, it's a boon.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Blue Cockatoo pfp

If an actual cap of 1m had been set up from the beginning, the min stake for max allowance (MSfMA) couldn't have moved beyond that. Right now there's no limit at all, the MSfMA can just keep moving up up up while diluting percentages more and more for the minnows. And the overstaking does hurt everyone by losing allowance on top of that. But, yeah, we can't cap the actual amounts now, so fixing the algo to virtually cap stake amounts or just coming up with new mechanics altogether that are based on tiers and not proportional or back to social score weight are really the only way to fix the issues, IMO. Though changing things that drastically makes it silly to have done all this with a 3 month lock in the first place. 🫤

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

RJ (replyor) pfp

I know I'm a lil late -- sorry -- but couldn't the algo just calculate based on a diff number? I'm going to do an awful job of explaining, but essentially the algo would switch from basing off total pool (used now) to a new total that excludes overstaking. example: there is 100 degen in the allowance pool, but there's no benefit to owning more than 10% of the pool current rules - if i own 50% of the pool, the rest of the people split only 50% suggested change - if i own 50% of the pool, the rest of the people still get 90% to divvy up bc i was capped

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Blue Cockatoo pfp

Right, that is what I have been suggesting and what that query I wrote can help figure out the right number of what the “virtual cap” for staking should be. Since overstaking is technically any amount staked above the minimum stake for maximum allowance (MSfMA) and that moves every time new stakers grow the entire pool, you could calculate it dynamically saying the MSfMA is the staking cap, or you could just pick a reasonable number like 1m and be done. Whichever number you use for the cap, the allowance would be based only on the total amount of stakes up to that number, so no overstaking. That seems the fairest solution to me.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions