This is a solution to a non-problem. Locking funds is never a great choice. Rebase jumpers lose typically and turn thier APY to APR. Restricting movements is not very DEFI, and sounds like desperation.
10 Likes
i like it, it could be a sort of VIP system (which people absolutely love it) where higher level is linked to a higher apy and maybe some other prize like NFTs or stuffs like that.
Quoting you just to make people read twice that weâre talking about a non problem.
Also happy to see you in here as well!
4 Likes
This. (need 20 characters)
4 Likes
Hey,
maybe a solution tothis rebase problem could be implementing a rule: that in order to receive your rebase(rewards) you HAVE to stake your capital for the 8 hours?
If you take your money out before the 8 hours, you lose your rewards.
Or, maybe another solution is to implement an internal clock for every staker, like a counter so it counts the time the capital was staked. This way the rebase time for every staker would be different. If you kept your TIME staked for 8 hours from the moment you staked, then you receive your rebase.
I canât say I see the point of jumping in and out, but I gues a huge amounts it may be worth it.
I like this idea, maybe in the form of snapshots like how Jade does it where if you unstake youâre ineligible for the next rebase. Just a thought im not sure if this is what yall were thinking.
Chech out metaversepro new 6, 6 stakingâŚvery intresting concept
Isnât 6,6 selling high and buying low? (Hard for most actors to do)
Totally agreed, I think that stakers should get rewards for how long they are staking but should never lock their TIME, it goes against the porpouse
1 Like
I still disagree with the premise, but I appreciate the clear explanation.
1 Like
I like the idea of locking rebases and fully support the author on this topic. Many decentralized projects already do this like Synthetix.io, who lock the profits for one year, which in my opinion is too much.
Even a monthsâ lock is too much. Why do you want it? Why?
3 Likes
Spot on! Thank you for clarifying and articulating my proposal
I donât support the idea of automatically locking any principal or rebase. Instead, I propose Wonderland offers a higher APY to anyone willing to lock TIME for 3, 6, 9 or 12 months, incentivizing long-term investors.
3 Likes
Yes, but in practice the lock-up period would only be there for 2-3 rebases. Actually even 1 locked-up rebase would be enough to disincentivize rebase trading. Yet, I understand that trading is a source of fees for the treasury, and that most of the times rebase trading wonât really hurt the projectâs growth, but at most it would only cause minimal delay in appreciation and volatility.
Still, I was explaining how the rebase lock-up period works, for those who thought that all the invested capital had to be locked-up.
Quite surely, someone who wants to invest in (which is different from trading on) the project would be willing to be invested for at least 8-16-24hrs (1, 2 or 3 rebases of lock-up period respectively) before being able to claim his rewards.
Such a thing would not scare people away.
(There are even investment funds that require you to be invested for a minimum amount of time, and thatâs a much larger time window than a few rebases)
That seems wrong to me:
-
Youâre not locking your money up.
You can withdraw them at any time, either by foregoing the rewards obtained if you withdraw before the end of the lock-up period, or by withdrawing also your rewards if you wait for the end of the lock-up period.
So the term âlock their money upâ seems incorrect to me. -
No investment actually carries a guarantee (Not even risk-free investments are actually risk free, not even collateralized investments)
-
Investors would still get the rebase reward compensating them for the risk they have taken (only traders would not receive it)
-
Itâs not like minting without getting the discount, itâs more like minting while also having the chance to get your money back (foregoing the return on investment you would get from the discount) if youâre not willing to wait for the end of the vesting period.
Anyway, I donât actually see rebase trading being a major issue as of now.
Still, I would like to know numbers before deciding on whether rebase trading is actually profitable for the project, as some say, or not (and thus having even a 1 rebase lock-up period would be beneficial).
If it were the case, then you should not give higher rewards to long-term investors, which would further increase the supply creating inflation pushing the price down faster, but by giving short-term investors a lower APY. At this point, giving everybody the same APY and making people eligible to rewards only if theyâve been staking funds for more than X hours seems to be reasonable.
Still, if the reason for this is âsolvingâ the âissueâ of rebase trading.
I agree with your stance! I think if should be an option to lock X amount of days.
1 Like
The real objective is for organic growth of the project. We need to discourage paper hands. What good are they for?
1 Like
I truly donât see an issue here. What has Time done throughout its history if not go up? First price test (not caused by this proposalâs concern), and many are already trying to change the system. Do you think Time couldâve gone up like it has if rebase hopping was really a big issue like itâs being presented here?
The real issue Iâve seen so far after reading many of these posts is how quickly people are to try to impose on others their individual needs/goals.
i.e âWell I was planning on using TIME to pay monthly bills so we should do this -insert solution that matches individual needsâ.
i.e âI want to use Time as a weekly allowance, so since I only need to take profit on Friday, we should lock up every day except FridayâŚwhen I need my moneyâ. LolâŚIâm obviously joking about that one, but there were posts that were close enough to the mark.
Instead of this attempt at controlling something that doesnât need to be controlled, why donât we all agree to a free market principal where we donât try to ram our ideas upon each other through a vote specially when it has to do with what we are allowed to do/not do with our money?
I can guarantee you that more money and investors will leave this platform than will come in if you as a community begin to force your views on others. Unless someone is cheating, stealing, or scamming you, this protocol should not take any action to limit the free flow of the market.
And rest assured, other projects will not waste time to advertise how restrictive Wonderland is with peopleâs ability to use their money. Sorry about the lengthy rebuttal but I truly believe this idea is a mistake.
9 Likes
Funds shouldnât be locked when staked! This is DeFi! I should be able to stake and unstake as I please. I do believe that higher staking incentives should be given to those that stake and for x amount of time. Maybe ROI and/or APY increases incrementally each day, week, or month that youâve been staked.
3 Likes