It could be good to maintain stability. At the same time it would make people that don’t feel like willing to commit like left off because they would be getting less APY… So I am not sure about this.
I agree with this preposition. Incentive for longer locking in would benefit the system and is better then mandated locking in periods that others have suggested.
I disagree with Descartes on the idea this will make people feel left out. They themselves have to make the choice what they are committing to. The conviction of commitment to the project should be rewarded in some form.
also the added benefit of potential price stability would be healthy. We have TIME tokens in the treasury this could be the vehicle of rewards for these lock-in’s potentially.
I dont think locking TIME is a good idea, I have some DOT locked on binance and it really feels like I just dont have that money anymore.
I said many times here but I think what should be done is a new reward method on top of the rebases that is given to people who have held TIME tokens for a long period of time like RomeDAO is doing.
Rebase hopping isn’t an issue. TIME got walloped from over-leveraged traders getting liquidated. Sifu is working on a solution to prevent price cascades during future liquidations.
I don’t like this idea of having a Certificate of Deposit (CD) for Wonderland. People may not participate in this program as the price can fall by 60% in one week. Lock the rebases for a certain period of time.
I like the idea of locking, but we could go a step further and lock with a wmemo loan priority.
So that people who lock their wmemo for longer get a
Higher priority to open a loan via abracadabra.
100% agree, locking up TIME and rewarding these stakers with a higher % rate is a win for TIME price stability and stakers with their returns, this is what Illuvium is doing and from what I see they are doing well with this model
I think you could do the same concept but without locking. For example someone who has been holding for 3 months is given 10% more ROI compared to someone who just bought or recently sold. The moment you unstake, your incentive counter gets reset to day 1. Also maybe you should cap the incentive at some point, like maximum bonus is given at 9 months but doesn’t increase after. Just a measure to ensure long term sustainability.
(These numbers are just examples to get the idea across)
You can give people the option, but who would do it? I can’t believe there will be many that would agree to lock their funds in a project that’s still in the bootstrapping phase.
Price of TIME, like any other crypto or security sold on the open market, will fluctuate in price. That’s just how it is.
I’m a fan of something like this. Others have proposed a mandatory locking in, which I disagree with. I’m in favor of more freedoms. If someone doesn’t want to agree to lock in for any amount of time, they shouldn’t have to. But for those that have a longer time frame, it would be a great incentive for locking their funds and providing greater stability. This has nothing to do with rebase hopping, as I don’t think that is a big issue. To me it’s basic psychology. Incentivize the behaviors that you want more of.
If I were to lock my funds in year, I’d want the APY fixed at lock time. This would prevent a situation where the APY plummets and I’m locked into a yield that I didn’t agree to.
The problem with fixing the APY is that APY is dynamic and no one knows what the correct sustainable APY will be in a year. Therefore it’s impossible to offer fixed long-term APYs while also retaining the flexibility for the project to evolve and survive.
While I like the idea of locking for other projects, I don’t think it works for Wonderland as either users will feel ripped off when their APY drops after locking, or the project will fail due to inability to adjust APY.