Right I misunderstood. Will take my word back
big big fan of this. i stated this in another forum post but for ppl who want to get the most out of their maybe smaller investment, this might be the way
Really like the idea. I think itāll be great if we can offer it as an additional option to people
- HODLers get additional APY if they choose to lock in long term
- Others can just have the usual APY if they choose to rebase hop
3 Likes
How would this system deal with the dynamic APY?
Being able to select mint time would be a more interesting alternative. It would rely on some kind of multiple of mint discount, so that mint discounts would be different for different mint times
1 Like
That is just greedy. The current APY is great and almost unbelievable as it it. Check your greed index mateā¦
4 Likes
You can technically acquire more Time by sidestepping (pulling out of TIME) before the BTC/market/Time drops in price and entering back in again at a much lower price (ofc youād have to be somewhat proficient in TA, which many whales are).
With that said, if we had some sort of APY booster for either locking or hodling Time tokens over various extended periods of time, then it could make it more advantageous to not sell off Time when BTC/market decides to shit the bed.
More long-term growth, stability & resilience than without.
5 Likes
i second this. apy is meant to be dynamic because it is tied to many other factors. iām not sure how we can lock the rate in for a year. will the whole model become unsustainable and consequently collapse from fixing the rate?
2 Likes
I donāt like that the term āAPYā is being used in all of these posts. APR is a percentage someone agrees to pay you for use of your money (Annual Percentage Rate). APY is a calculation that tells you how much youād have at the end of one year (Amount Per Year). What everybody is suggesting is a sliding rebase scale that would be dependent on millions of different variables, from the amount staked to the time initially staked. What happens if you have some MEMO staked and decide to add more. Would you be receiving your new rebase amount based on you initial stake or your new staked amount? Would you have two separate rebase amounts?
Not only would it be a nightmare to code, it would render most of the protocol and community useless. Why would anybody care about what other people wanted or even what suggestions Daniele had if it was just an algorithm determining how much you were making. I personally like interacting with all of you fine people on a regular basis.
I agree that people would feel cheated if APY dropped after locking, thatās why I think that if this is implemented, there should be a disclaimer that says āhey APY could drop donāt be madā
but I do think that boosting incentive for those who decide to lock their funds is a fantastic idea. How thatād be coded is beyond me, but Iām 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 āemergencyā button where if you no longer want your funds to be locked and youāve already locked them, youād just take a 5-10% fee for jailbreaking, which would go into the treasury and benefit those who are still staking.
3 Likes
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
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
An interesting concept indeed for the Wonderland ecosystem. I have some questions I wouldnāt mind discussing regarding this topic of higher APY % for locking TIME.
(1) How or what would be the best way to distribute rewards for ālockedā TIME/MEMO?
(2) How or when would those rewards be paid out?
If high value(%) of TIME holders were to ālockā 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 ālockedā 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 ālockedā 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 itās 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 Iām trying to āpoke holesā in this idea, Iām not, Iām just curious.
Thanks everyone!
but what happens if everyone then decide to stake? How sustainable would it be? Probably less
Check out this thread.
I really like this idea.
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 2.5xā¦ 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.
1 Like
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
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, itās not locked. But you still get rewarded more for holding longer term.
3 Likes
I totally support this. Long term HODlersā¦ come one this is a no brainer.
I think something along these lines would be beneficial. Itās 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 ālock inā period may deter potential investors and I am a firm believer that oneās own money should be readily accessible, and on that basis I would prefer something more along the lines as suggested by @Dtm
2 Likes