@indexer_payne has good idea. Let’s think about this proposal as part of delegate 2.0, as well
There’s no relevancy between this thread and that proposal, if you read it. Nobody mentioned avoiding unthawing periods in the event of an exit from the protocol.
So it’s completely fine, indexers to do that, but not delegators.
You should try to respond to the points made rather than attacking a group or making assumptions based on perceived victimhood.
Also consider some simple math. As in - the potential market impact regarding the volatility aspect, when comparing the weight of rewards from staking-only, as opposed to the rewards from all allocations.
With the big difference beside their own tokens they get shares from delegators and have in fact much higher APY than delegators, opportunity cost isn’t a factor for the delegators?
Yes, they demand higher APY, because they provide the means to stake. If they got the same APY, they’d earn less, while making the effort to provide that service.
It starts to look more and more like indexers protect their own interest and they care for the delegators as far as they delegate to them and thats it.
I’m also a very actively invested Delegator and have made over 70 delegations in the past 2 months. But despite that, i’m not interested in changes that i believe would harm the network or project (such as in the ways i’ve mentioned), even if i could very well take advantage of it myself, no matter which side of the fence it benefits.
Beside the fact indexers need to pay infrastructure nothing is different for the delegators
Yes. And it’s a large differentiator.
Anyway…
Exactly. I was and am fine with having to withdraw Indexer rewards via a thawing period, which i’ve noted in other discussions. Though i think it may be headed in another (no thaw) direction purely down to chance of it being the best way to implement it on a technical level, from what i’ve gathered from some other comments by the team.
Personally, I would actually prefer to see no group able to avoid thawing their in-protocol funds or rewards, for various reasons, including the ‘volatility’ example. And i’ve yet to see arguments that are focused on long-term positives over short-term desires, other than the taxation considerations some have made, which is definitely a good and valid reason completely on it’s own.
In that sense, delegators should also be allowed to do the same with their own token lock contracts (basically any token lock contract should allow for rewards to be withdrawn without the need for a full unstake/undelegation), but neither indexers nor delegators should be allowed to bypass thawing periods.
We do think, however, that if a Delegator wants to move from one Indexer to another, there might be some benefit to modifying the thaw period.
100% agree. The punishment to Delegators should be minimized if an Indexer acts badly or makes an exit. This is what the points made by @indexer_payne focused on, as it’s how things behaved moreso in early testnet. Being “in protocol” vs out, and in this state you should have a bit more freedom with re-delegation. Different topic though, feel free to make a thread on this.
A downside mentioned is that immediately available rewards will create sell pressure by the indexers now being able to sell their rewards on the market. This is true, but in the same respect, if a fix like this is never implemented - it means we continue to build up the sell pressure for a potential huge sell off. Eventually, many indexers will have to unstake and sell. And it would be likely that this would be around the time that Indexers token lock wallets begin to unlock, which is 1 year from network launch.
A good point that is often not considered.