Delegators using token-lock contracts are still disadvantaged post GIP-0002

We (LunaNova) would like to thank everyone who worked hard to develop and implement GIP-0002.

It took far longer than expected but this was not down to a lack of effort or bad intentions. Now implemented, it enables Indexers to access rewards to cover costs incurred and fund investment necessary to handle Subgraph migration and growth of the network.

However, we recently discovered that those delegating via a token-lock contract are still in the same situation Indexers were in pre GIP-0002 and unable to access any GRT rewards without unstaking everything and waiting 28 days.

Whilst delegators do not have the capital and operational expenses that Indexers have, they will incur tax liabilities in most jurisdictions and it is unfair that they cannot access some of their GRT rewards to settle these without significant inconvenience.

We therefore wanted to highlight this issue because this is clearly impractical and cannot be what was intended when the network was in its design stages. It is important that a suitable solution be developed and implemented at the earliest opportunity, alongside the next set of upgrades to the smart contracts.


There’s alot of upgrade work on E&N’s table right now such as GIP0003 and activities around migrations, however I think we would benefit from some advice from experts such as @ariel and @davekaj on how complex resolving this type of shortfall might be.


Thanks for raising this again. This is definitely still on our radar, though admittedly has been taking a back seat to a lot of work required to ensure a smooth migration of subgraphs from the hosted service to mainnet.

I’ll let @ariel weigh in on the particulars, but this kind of change would introduce additional bookkeeping requirements for all delegate/undelegate transactions, which adds complexity and gas costs. It’s also not 100% clear to me yet what the upgrade path would look like.

It sounds like there may be some community interest in putting together and evaluating a proposal for this, which would be fantastic.

P.S. this is a duplicate of: Delegators rewards should be withdrawable to a separate address - #7 by juanmardefago

So we should direct conversation there.