GIP-0002: Rewards destination for indexer's indexing rewards

[Mike-LunaNova]

Thank you for taking the time to post your suggestion.

The challenge here is how we get all stakeholders (delegators, developers, indexers, curators etc) to pull together in the best interests of the protocol. Those blocking this issue from moving forward need to recognise the severity of the problem and respond in an appropriate timescale. Without decisive action we run the risk that this situation continues to the point that Indexers are forced to withdraw, damaging the whole ecosystem in terms of both reputation and efficacy.

The GIP-0002 solution was presented by The Graph team (now Edge and Node), discussed at length, smart contract modifications implemented, audited, tested and finally a public vote for all stakeholders led to a near-unanimous decision to move forward with it. Those who now wish to potentially block GIP-0002 in favour of another solution should have been clear about this much earlier and we could have had a vote on multiple options. To attempt to switch to another proposal now, that delays an already untenable situation, puts the whole network at risk.

The real issue, is not that there are not other potentially viable solutions, it is that we are out of time to explore and then implement them!

Indexers need access to liquid rewards now, which was the original design intent – this problem is an error that needs to be corrected, not next week, not next month, but now. Indexers are keen to play their part in the ecosystem in partnership with delegators and other stakeholders, for this they have incurred significant operational expenses since the start of testnet 8 months ago, have put in substantial unpaid effort and now have accumulated serious tax liabilities. Preparation for the migration of more Subgraphs will require yet more expense and effort from these same parties.

[suntzu]

You’re right. Why did The Graph Council not voice the issues they were concerned about when we discussed the GIP-0002 in the past? Why do they reject after voting and come up with another option that takes longer to complete? It was a vicious cycle and we spent 3 months on this problem but ended up waiting for at least another 2 to 3 months for another solution.

[Oliver]

As a delegator, I have been following this discussion closely over the last few months. I feel the indexer community has described in sufficient enough details the logical need to obtain access to rewards and I think this is broadly understood at this point.

GIP2 is not without flaws and the councils decision shows they recognize that and take it serious. However, the decision to delay introduces indexer challenges that are not in the best interest of any network participant. If indexers start shutting down, then we all lose in the pursuit of our mutual goal to grow The Graph ecosystem.

I have full faith in this community and I believe most everyone here wants to do what’s right for the project, whether it’s the council, indexers, delegators, curators. Let’s not have our differing viewpoints lead to decisions that may result in serious damages to one network group.

I applaud that we are working on a new GIP that addresses concerns raised in GIP2. I have full trust that the new GIP will receive broader support across the aisles and will later be approved as a more equitable solution. With that trust in mind, I also support implementing GIP2 asap as an interim solution, so that indexers can address both their existential concerns as well as subgraph migration readiness over the coming weeks.

[cryptovestor]

With the Graph Mainnet Migration Path announcement made here and the reaction to the proposal of GIP0004 to replace GIP0002 I feel the need to instill some urgency, to ensure that everyone fully understands the gravity of the time-to-revenue Indexers face and the impact of waiting for GIP0004. I am writing this now because waiting for the next Council meeting is too late. With hindsight and knowledge of the Mainnet Migration Plan, this is the strength of opinion I would have delivered to the Council meeting.

Indexers have made valid points about the burden of their financial situation and how waiting on GIP0004 worsens the it for many. These issues skew aggressively against smaller indexers. Please take the time to read their thoughts in this thread and understand the weight they carry. My focus here is on exploring realistic timeframes and getting this sorely needed fix in place as soon as possible.

The migration announcement sets out plans to start migration tests in April during which Indexers will see no revenue despite the requirement to scale up operations both opex (labor, hosting) and capex (compute). The migration announcement sets out plans to move into production apps after that. With GIP0004, Indexers will continue see no realized revenue until at least June/July at best so there is an expectation that they continue to scale and provide services into live migrations with no revenue. This is not acceptable in any business environment.

When taking into consideration governance process, technical review of GIP0004, auditing being an unknown timeline but critical path to a GIP0004 upgrade, we are looking at late June/July before rewards start to hit Indexer wallets as an optimistic case. Thank you to @Pete-LunaNova and @dancube for setting this out so clearly. Given the current bull market and how it creates extreme difficulty in sourcing auditors, especially auditors that already have knowledge of the codebase, we could be waiting any amount of time for a GIP0004 audit - Indexer’s cannot tolerate such uncertainty anymore.

We need our Indexers to move into testing and migration with their minds focussed on delivering an excellent service, not struggling to stay afloat or crushed under tax obligations because by the time they can access any of their revenue, a whole year has passed since Mission Control started.

The migration announcement crystallizes my personal opinion - we need to resolve the Indexer rewards issue now with GIP0002. I implore everyone that in responding to this, we focus on how we come together to fix the shortfall promptly. Lets move into Mainnet Migration with confidence that all stakeholders are financially positioned to play their part. If we have to resolve some GIP0002 risks and we have assessed those risks appropriately, lets do so retroactively and as promptly as we can.

Thank you to everyone that has contributed and continues to engage in the discussion.

[Fattox]

I’ve had a lot of conversations today with many stakeholders on this topic, as well as with @cryptovestor (in context of our recent Council meeting vs ‘the now’) and i appreciate being able to witness a lot of people making their voices heard in here and elsewhere. It’s no surprise to myself that Indexers, after a long period of patience and understanding, are being vocal about their grievances with all of this. It is the exact sentiment i expected.

I just wanted to lend my support to the above and say that the extra context provided by time, thought, discussion and the newly-revealed Subgraph Migration timeline has made it even clearer to me just how critical a solution is to this matter. In my opinion, one that adds further runway in addition to a thawing period is simply no longer a feasible consideration as our immediate next step. Not unless we’re OK with seeing many Indexers leave the set, once faced with the additional unpaid work/infra/costs that shall come along with this next step for the network.

The tax considerations/timelines presented above by some may not apply to every Indexer, due to jurisdiction, but i’ve seen this topic deliberated over for many weeks/months at this point. And i’ve noticed that many of those who have been vocal on this particular matter, were some of those who were motivated enough to join the new (unpaid) testnet, lending their time and energy, and even testing the GIP 0002 implementation as part of that. People willing to do unpaid testnet work are the types we should aim to retain, and their efforts stretch far prior to mainnet or the ‘new’ testnet…

Of course, the current ‘tax’ deadlines facing some may not be reason enough to move forward with the GIP. But it’s something that affects all Indexers to a various degree. And this is still only one part of the many other factors that contribute to the urgency of this situation, such as:

• It never being intended that Indexers were unable to extract their rewards.
• The fact that Indexers have given their time/energy/costs far prior to the initiation of mainnet (~8 months so far…)
• The snapshot ‘signal’ that drew a 99.72% positive vote, which is not only a matter of consensus, but also reflects on how engaged Indexers are as a group.
• Further to that - Ignoring such a clear result (when a vote was expected to follow) and the opinions of some of our most engaged stakeholders may set a bad precedence and lack of faith in our governance processes in the future.
• The risk of centralizing the network through inaction on this matter, as Indexers drop out.

… and many other points - all come together in convincing me that we should move forward with this GIP as soon as possible, and then address any perceived imbalances or improvements (preferably, very) shortly after.

There’s a lot of people here with nothing to show for the past 8 months other than gains on paper, or a dashboard. Not even something to cover their time and expenses thus far.

If we want those people to stick around, we need to start allowing them to see something tangible for their efforts. Not working for ‘free’ while also indebting themselves further, just to stay involved in their role. And aside from that, for the network to thrive, it needs them to be able to perform their role well, with whatever infrastructure required being covered as part of that equation. The network can not be propped up by goodwill or expected to scale through what is essentially still ‘donated’ infrastructure.

And we can’t expect the network to not centralize, while also observing that the realistic, continued lack of realized compensation, is now on a course that could see us hitting the 1 year mark.

---

Side note: I would appreciate further clarity (from an E&N developer) on how exactly the unthawing mechanism in GIP 0004 works. I’ve spoken with a number of people on this and seen/heard some concerns over this implementation. It’s not possible for any Council member to deliberate over this, whether it’s implemented now or later, without further information.

[Oliver]

@Fattox

The snapshot ‘signal’ that drew a 99.72% positive vote, which is not only a matter of consensus, but also reflects on how engaged Indexers are as a group.

Good opportunity to provide some deeper insight into the voting results of GIP2. Beside the token support of 99.72%, GIP2 also received a broad wallet support of about 90%. Moreover, the engagement of the voting also extended to the Delegator community that casted 37% (135) of all votes with 82% of them supporting GIP2. Below chart provides more details.

While some valid concerns were raised during the GIP2 discussions which the community seems committed to address, I think the voting data demonstrates that the Delegator community at large also supported this GIP for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.

[ariel]

Some update about the current status of the PR related to GIP 0004.

The way the implementation works is by using the exact mechanism as removing stake. It will do a weighted average of time and amount of tokens to update the new unlock block for rewards in the pool. I find that this is suitable for unstaking where indexers have more control over when to initiate. However, in the case of rewards, both closeAllocation and claim will trigger a recalculation. This could make it hard to estimate when the withdrawal is unlocked or affect indexers’ allocation strategy as now the two processes will be coupled with the withdrawal process.

We are evaluating some options:

• Indexers initiate unlocking of rewards in the pool like when they unstake, to have the update of unlocking date detached from depositing rewards.
• Devise a more fluid mechanism.

For reference: Withdraw indexing rewards to beneficiary address with thawing period by abarmat · Pull Request #456 · graphprotocol/contracts · GitHub

[dancube]

Thanks for that update Ariel.

@ariel

• Indexers initiate unlocking of rewards in the pool like when they unstake, to have the update of unlocking date detached from depositing rewards.

This sounds to me like the most tangible solution that will allow indexers to rely on a date at which they will receive their rewards upon triggering a withdrawal, a useful property to have when it comes to forecasting ahead when it comes to expenses. I can’t imagine the implications on tax calculation for the current weighted average method or the ‘more fluid mechanism’.

The fact that we are still exploring options like this tells me that GIP0004 is a long way away indeed, and that Jim’s timeline of June/July does sound like a best case scenario.

[Brandon]

Hey everyone, thanks for all your additional input. I appreciate everyone’s contributions to this discussion and commitment to finding the best solution.

I want to reiterate that we take the urgency of this issue very seriously, especially in light of the recent announcements around subgraph migration. As I noted in my previous update:

I would not personally support delaying on GIP-0002 if it meant Indexers waiting substantially longer to claim their indexing rewards

I do feel like we have an obligation to explore all viable proposals in working towards the best solution (and these extra few days have given us that opportunity), but we shouldn’t let great get in the way of good for a problem needs a short term solution.

Here are some updates that were promised in my previous post:

• Graph Council Meeting notes have been published and can be found here
• GIP-0004 has been published to my main branch on Radicle (Ariel has already shared the Github PR).
• The earliest we can get GIP-0004 reviewed by an external auditor is the first two weeks of May, which we feel is too long to wait on a fix for this issue.

The last option being explored is whether The Graph Council itself could sign off on GIP-0004, given that the changes are limited in scope, and that we have three external (to E&N) Solidity experts on The Council. This is a benefit of having technical domain experts on The Council.

We’re meeting tomorrow morning to walk through the code changes line by line and discuss whether we would be comfortable with this approach. After that, several Graph Council members have expressed willingness to do an async vote on GIP-0002/GIP-0004 in the next few days, to accelerate the schedule for an upgrade. We will have another update to post on this by EOD tomorrow.

---

Lastly, I’d like to clarify a few (what I consider to be) misunderstandings in some of the feedback above:

A lot of concern seems due to unfounded worries that somehow GRT price may be negatively affected by Indexers having access to their rewards.

This is not at all where the concern lies. Thawing periods in our protocol, and mechanisms for adding “slowness” to cryptoeconomic protocols in general (whether they involve voting, staking, etc.) serve many purposes, and it was never the goal of GIP-0002 to remove that. It was simply a side effect of trying to address another unrelated problem with a minimum viable solution.

I understand its governance process and blah blah

I realize decentralized governance, and the time it has taken to get the tooling and processes to support it set up, may seem like an unnecessary burden, but I believe strongly that there is value in doing things right from day one. Our commitment to this ethos is part of what has brought so many people into The Graph community and is a requirement of launching a decentralized network.

what was the point to ask for opininion (voting process) and got >99% support to go ahead with tested and vetted solution, if at the same time minority < 1% (by fact a few users whose involvment and contribution in community is uncertain) could completely deminish and eliminate effort of whole community and active members.

During the early days of The Graph’s decentralized governance, the role of SnapShot community polls is to be a valuable information signal to The Graph Council and Foundation, along with other inputs like discussion in the forums and at Protocol Townhalls. It is not intended to be a direct governance mechanism, though I do believe that it could lay the groundwork for such a mechanism in the future.

One problem with adopting the results of any vote “as is” is that the community was never given the chance to vote between GIP-0002 and GIP-0004. They simply voted between GIP-0002 and an undesirable status quo, and I would wager that any proposal that improved upon the status quo (including GIP-0004) would have also likely received a “yes” vote. Voting mechanisms like this, in general, are extremely vulnerable to the ordering in which proposals are presented.

Currently, it’s the mandate of The Council to take into account both the quantitative feedback offered by polls, as well as the substance and content of specific feedback being offered. This mandate, more than anything, is why we felt it was appropriate to take a few extra days to consider all options and not out of some irrational desire to diminish the voice of anyone in the community.

All the processes and tooling that we’ve set up, from a transparent GIP process, to a Graph Council with representatives from all stakeholder groups, to SnapShot community polling, to Protocol Townhalls, has been with the intention of elevating the voice of as many folks in the community as possible. I know getting these self-same processes set up is part of what has taken so much time, but I promise this will get smoother and we’ll continue to iterate until we push the boundaries of what an effective decentralized governance process can look like.

[Pete-LunaNova]

Hi Brandon,

Thanks for the update. I appreciate the effort your team are putting in to this.

I am concerned that you still consider GIP-004 a viable alternative to GIP-0002 in the short-term. Even if GIP-0004 was somehow ready to go tomorrow, it still takes 28 days to get liquid rewards due to the thaw period. For small Indexers, having run operations and incurred tax liabilities with no income for the last 8 months, this is simply too long to wait. One Indexer unstaked and closed up shop yesterday and another one earlier today. I have just seen another enquire about how to do this; the trickle may soon become a torrent without a quick way to get these people paid for their efforts. Given the number of direct competitors to The Graph coming online, it is vital we retain and nurture our ecosystem talent to survive in the long-term.

In my initial response I did make the point that “A lot of concern seems due to unfounded worries that somehow GRT price may be negatively affected by Indexers having access to their rewards.”, but this was not specifically directed at you. Although removing thawing for rewards was never the goal of GIP-0002, the discussion around it has highlighted how a lengthy thaw period can enable large, wealthy players to gain advantage over smaller indexers, therefore some of the GIP-0002 side effects may actually be serendipitous in helping us move towards a better model.

At the right time, I’d appreciate a response to the other points I raised so that we could get into the details. I’m keen to understand if there’s anything I’ve missed. I’d also like to explore whether a significantly reduced thawing period for rewards (say 1-3 days) could be a good compromise in the longer term. This could still disincentivize the sort of behaviour you wish to avoid but not hinder smaller Indexers, less able to deal with very lumpy revenue flows than larger players. This shorter thaw duration may also deter large Indexers from offering back-channel immediate rewards to their delegators, a very real risk with a 28-day period.

[dereksilva]

Thanks for laying this all out. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, but I don’t think the urgency of more than 50% of indexers potentially pulling out of the network entirely can be overstated.

Yes, you may be right that GIP-0004 would win in a vote over GIP-0002, however this is not a common scenario I’ve seen in protocol governance. An option was put together, it was voted on, and the results were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal as-is. If GIP-0004 were already being contemplated at the time, then GIP-0002 never should have been put up for a vote.

While I respect that The Graph Council gets the final say on this matter, I would strongly urge the Council to move forward with GIP-0002 and then have a separate vote on GIP-0004 with clear intention that it replaces GIP-0002’s implementation if approved.

Is that a bit cumbersome? Yes. However, it more or less solves everyone’s concerns in a relatively short amount of time while providing respect to the Indexers who are in an incredibly risky financial position, and understandably so, while also putting to bed the issues of potentially timing withdrawals and notions of fairness when compared with Delegators (of which I am one among the 6,000+).

I strongly feel that not implementing GIP-0002 now threatens the viability of The Graph at one of its most critical junctures.

[dancube]

@Brandon

The last option being explored is whether The Graph Council itself could sign off on GIP-0004, given that the changes are limited in scope, and that we have three external (to E&N) Solidity experts on The Council. This is a benefit of having technical domain experts on The Council.

We’re meeting tomorrow morning to walk through the code changes line by line and discuss whether we would be comfortable with this approach.

What do you mean by “sign off”? Are you suggesting a go ahead with implementation in place of a professional audit?

[mindstyle_p-ops]

Hello.

So ive got a few points to raise here:

1. why did minority (the council) cancel a legitimate successful vote just because a few disagreed? Its not like theres a solution where everyone will always agree. There just isnt.
2. why does the council have this power?
3. gip4 will take a LONG time, queries start soon. Are we ready for even MORE indexers quitting or not really do much indexing so they dont go broke on Ethereum gas fees?
4. im disappointed at the team and council, beyond any words, and the arrogance bothers me a lot. It seems like the team thinks that the Graph cant fail because its the first and very known, yet it has many issues as we see. There is real competition coming (at least 5 good alternatives to the graph) and if you keep destroying everything and postponing urgent things, there will be no one left to index here.

All in all, super disappointed at the attitude from the team, most of the council and the way things are going here. Something has to change. This project isnt too big to not being able to fall down hard. And none of us want that. Currently, i see this going down if things dont change as you are going against the majority and even prolonging the pain some indexers are already experiencing, not to mention whats coming with real subgraphs. This is not acceptable in my opinion. And i dont support gib4 or the time it will take to get it done. Just no.

[Brandon]

Hey everyone, as discussed yesterday several members of The Graph Council, as well as several other individuals from the community, met this morning to walk through the code changes contained in GIP-0004 and provide input on the scope of the changes from a smart contract security risk perspective and also on the viability of the mechanism as an alternative to GIP-0002.

During the discussion, the following points were raised with respect to GIP-0004.

Pros

• Targets the specific problem laid out in GIP-0002 without introducing any “side-effects” to the economics of the rest of the system.

Cons

• The implementation uses stake-weighted thawing periods to compress multiple reward withdrawals into a single balance, similar to what is done other places in the protocol, however, for a continuous rewards stream, this actually extends the effective thawing period for allocations that are shorter in duration than the thawing period.
• Related to the previous point, rewards from allocations created at the beginning of April would potentially not be withdrawable until towards the end of May. This would deprive Indexers of the ability to cover operational expenses during the critical subgraph migration period.
• Introduces new code paths and value flows for the rewards pool rather than re-using existing ones, for reasons that are completely idiosyncratic to the Token Lock Wallet. This code bloat also required a refactor of other parts of the smart contract in order to avoid exceeding the maximum smart contract storage size.
• As a result of the previous bullet, the scope of changes are larger than the smart contract experts on the Council would feel comfortable signing off on in the absence of an external audit, which currently could be scheduled for May at the earliest.

For the above reasons we’ve decided to initiate a governance vote on whether to deploy the upgrade described by GIP-0002 at the earliest convenience. The governance proposal is live on Snapshot here.

---

I’d like to add some color to why I will be voting “yes” on this proposal:

While it is a governing principle of The Graph Council to avoid zero-sum games, all other things being equal, in this case, all other things were not equal, for the reasons described above, along with others that have been pointed out in this thread.

It is also a governing principle of The Graph Council that it should maximize value for all stakeholders. In this case, a lack of timely action would not only imply a downside for the affected Indexers but also their Delegators, as well as Subgraph Developers, Dapp Developers, and their end-users who are counting on a stable service during the subgraph migration.

Furthermore, it’s unlikely that all proposals will benefit all stakeholders equally. For example, as we move past this proposal, we (E&N) can turn some of our attention to researching solutions to some of the issues outlined in this thread, which primarily impact Delegators. The outcome of such research may be proposals that disproportionately benefit Delegators, relative to Curators, Indexers, etc. So it’s important to not take too narrow a view of the principles outlined in The Graph Council’s mandate on any single proposal.

---

Finally, I would like to comment that while we may all play different roles in this protocol, we’re on a shared journey here. I encourage Delegators to consider how supporting the grassroots community of independent Indexers is of vital importance to the long-term success and decentralization of the network. Similarly, I hope Indexers understand why to some of us, it felt important to make sure that Delegators (and some Indexers) felt heard in their feedback by exploring all possible alternatives, even if we had the majority support to follow the more expedient path.

[wfqfw]

I, for one, appreciate the steps that were taken to address the delegators’ criticism of GIP-0002. However, losing indexers due to delayed implementation of said GIP seems like a bigger issue. I’m guessing GIP-0004 can be revisited when indexers are on a more solid financial footing, viz., after GIP2 implementation and the migration process?
Btw, if in the future another happenstance arises that prevents proper (i.e. 3rd party) audits from being conducted in a timely manner, it’d be nice to name the individuals who helped inspect the GIP code. For the sake of transparency (unless chatham house rules apply for some reason). You guys are the experts though and probably know better, but to me that aspect seemed like skating on thin ice.

[Brandon]

if in the future another happenstance arises that prevents proper (i.e. 3rd party) audits from being conducted in a timely manner, it’d be nice to name the individuals who helped inspect the GIP code. For the sake of transparency (unless chatham house rules apply for some reason).

I think that’s a reasonable idea. The Council hasn’t established any norms here as this was more a meeting to discuss whether the scope of changes were small enough to even consider going down that path.

[Oliver]

An inherent drawback of voting is that it tends to be binary in the choice it provides, often times denying a voter the chance to express a more nuanced viewpoint. Forums like these bridge that gap by adding color, context and intent to the votes we cast. We have gone through tense dialogues over the last few months with some heated debates on GIP2. We’ve started at a simple request and arrived at a point where we all have come to better understand the complexities impacting different network participants.

While we may have been angry with one another and at times confused, we all have gained insight into each others thoughts at a deeper and more meaningful level. I feel encouraged that most viewpoints which were shared, albeit contentious at times, were brought forth with sincerity, honesty and integrity. As such, my trust in this community has grown and my confidence in the future success of this project has increased a lot.

The current council voting on GIP2 has received majority approval and on the heels of the deep discussions this can be viewed as a win for the community as a whole:

• The Council has demonstrated that it is composed of representatives across all network participants. This GIP revealed that balancing the needs of everyone can be extremely challenging. I highly commend @Brandon for taking us deep into the thought processes around GIP2 which showed thoughtful consideration and a commitment to getting this right. We have also heard from other council members (@Fattox , @cryptovestor , @yaniv ) from different network associations, providing more insight into the GIP2 dynamics. Hearing such public statements from as many council members as possible from the different corners of our network is pivotal in giving the community members confidence their interests are well represented in the decision making process and I look forward to seeing all council members engaged on critical future GIPs like this one.

• Delegators can feel a lot more assured that concerns are heard and being taken into consideration after having gone through our first governance process. Approval of GIP2 is not the final destination, as Brandon laid out. We are on a continuous journey and shortcomings of GIP2 are being addressed with sincere commitment to GIP4.

• Indexers have finally got the path cleared for what should have been there from day one: access to rewards in order to obtain funds to sustain their businesses financially. I highly respect the indexer community for sticking with this project for over 8+ months without having had the opportunity to accessing rewards thus far. This not only speaks to the promise of The Graph project, but even more so to the quality of the indexer group we have in our community.

However, we also have losers. Unfortunately, GIP2 approval from the council has come too late for some indexers. Over the last month, a number of smaller indexers were forced to undelegate their own stake in response to the uncertainty of the outcome of these discussions and due to the need to cover their costs. They don’t receive the immediate benefits of the GIP2 approval anymore since they are now stuck in the 28d thawing period. Moreover, they are now at risk of losing their delegator portfolio and having to start all over again. These indexers are the real casualties of our prolonged debates on GIP2 over the last few months.

Some of these indexers are the very same ones who helped getting this project to where it is today. They engaged from day one, provided free resources for testnet activities and helped The Graph grow to its current state. It’s incumbent on all of us to think about paths that ease their way back into The Graph indexer community. As a delegator, here are some specific actions I am committing to support that:

• Soon, impacted delegators may inquire about the status of those indexers in different social platforms. The average delegator does not necessarily follow this very forum and may thus not be informed about the situation. They may conclude they have signed up for a bad indexer. I will write up a digestible synopsis to address such inquiries to provide context in order to appropriately inform delegators of the situation

• @dereksilva , @cryptovestor and I will jointly work together to disseminate the information most effectively in the delegator and indexer community to maximize our chances that we connect with all those that are impacted.

• @ all impacted indexers #1: please come forward by reaching out to me via discord (Zorro). We need to know who you are and that you are in fact committed to returning as a Graph indexer, so we can incorporate your details in our communication to the delegator community.

• @ all impacted indexers #2: I am an admin with The Graphtronauts telegram chat. We have some 2K members and we focus our engagement on promoting the value of delegating GRT. Many indexers are already members in our chat and I invite you to join us as well. We frequently field questions like “which indexer should I choose?” We typically provide general delegation advise while remaining mostly impartial on recommending individual indexers. I hereby extend to you a platform of promotion. If you reach out to me, join our group, and be as engaged with delegators like the other indexers are in our group, I will give you the promise that we will promote you specifically to new delegators over the coming months in order to help you getting back to where you left off as quickly as possible.

Contentious debates around proposals like GIP2 can be make or break moments for projects. Let’s make this our moment to come together stronger as a community. GIP2 gave us all a lot of lessons to learn, across all network participants. Let’s get to it!

[cryptovestor]

@Oliver

Some of these indexers are the very same ones who helped getting this project to where it is today. They engaged from day one, provided free resources for testnet activities and helped The Graph grow to its current state. It’s incumbent on all of us to think about paths that ease their way back into The Graph indexer community.

Confirming I will contribute as much as I can to this, thank you @Oliver for leading and taking this initiative forward. I’d also like to extend you an invite to Wednesday’s Office Hours and we will put this initiative front and center along with a discussion on the governance events of the last week.

[davekaj]

Hey everyone,

We have upgraded the contracts on mainnet for GGP-0001 / GIP-0002.

This PR in the contracts repo resulted in a contract upgrade, deployed on March 29th 2021, allows indexers to withdraw rewards and avoid immediate restaking, and thus requiring all rewards go through a 28 day thawing period no matter what. The council upgraded and will be accepting the proxy in the next few hours.

Now indexers will now be able to withdraw current rewards to a separate address, making the GRT liquid. How it works:

• You must call setRewardsDestination(address _destination)
• Where address _destination is the address you want the rewards sent to
• Now when calling closeAllocation() the rewards will be sent to your destination address, rather then being restaked.
• This will work for all current open allocations, and all future allocations.

Note that all rewards will go to this address after the destination address is set. If you want to have rewards auto restake again (the way the contracts have always worked in the past, you would call setRewardsDestination() and pass in the 0x000…000 address.

This information was also shared in the notion document for interacting through remix, as well as discord.

[Brandon]

Thanks for all the hard work to everyone who contributed to getting this over the finish line! This is The Graph’s first protocol upgrade using decentralized governance, a significant milestone for any decentralized protocol .

@Oliver Great idea! Also happy to support this effort in whatever way I can.