GIP-0052: Timeline and requirements to increase rewards in L2

Still making progress with the Transfer Tools! The contracts have been audited and we’re going through the testing plan on testnet. There’s ongoing work on the Explorer / Studio support for them, changes to the Network Subgraph, and the Indexer Agent changes to support subgraph transfers. It will take a few more weeks for all of this to come together for a mainnet release, but we’re getting there.


As for thoughts from the Council - they might reply here, but I can say that we’ve been sharing this GIP with them and getting their feedback. They had similar concerns to the ones expressed here, especially around ensuring the Transfer Tools are ready before doing any more increases. After the last edits there was consensus around the timeline and requirements.


Late to the conversation here, but have we considered creating a reputation score for Indexers in a subgraph? Could be interesting to factor in these kinds of metrics across L1 and L2 into a single score that we sort by. Could be something that gets improved over time. There’s a risk that it would be gamed and/or become a politically controversial topic, but I think web3 reputation systems are important and this could be interesting place to start in a low stakes way in The Graph.

1 Like

I think this timeline is too short. There is only 19 indexer on ARB and a very low stake yet! On the other hand, moving the stake is not going to be easy, providing the natural friction to unstake in the graph, web3 coordination (it takes time), the way rewards cut work, and so on.
Don’t make the same mistake that with Hosted Service. Pushing is ok, but not that hard. I suggest more steps and at least a month or two between them.

Wouldn’t this be something that @chris at Graphops can do with the Graphcast Radios? :thinking:

I had the same thought. I think the main challenge would be that The Graph doesn’t currently support cross-chain subgraphs.

Historically, the blocker has been requiring a source of truth to produce a total ordering of events across two different blockchains, but for blockchains that are within the same blockchain cluster, I don’t believe this is as much of an issue (cc @adamfuller).

I’m generally supportive of the updated timeline by Pablo.

I agree doing things like POAPs or sponsoring quests would be nice-to-haves, though I do think incentives will predominately be the driving force in getting people over.

L2 is also a big enabler for planned UX improvements that the core developers have been working on, so an expedient move to L2 is in the best interest of the entire network as it will help precipitate a quicker migration of queries from the hosted service onto the decentralized network.


A few things to note:

  • Not entirely sure how rewards cut have anything to do with transferring L1 state to L2 (as it’s a system that has already been used, abstracted away with other metrics, like effective cut, and most, if not all, participants are already quite aware as to how it works), but maybe I’m missing something
  • The natural friction to unstake is being abstracted away with the L2 transfer tools, which provide a relatively simple and almost instant way to move L1 state to L2 (indexer stake, delegations, curation, and even vesting contracts)
  • The push for increased % of indexing rewards in Arbitrum is to incentivize people to move over at a certain pace, and the requirements for each new stage provide a safety net against what you are pointing out (not having enough indexers and stake and keep pushing for higher % of indexing rewards on L2)

I do agree that the web3 coordination part does apply to this case, as each participant will need to transfer their own state to L2, but this is going to be heavily addressed by providing clear comms around this topic


Great to see the Council vote for helpers go live today. However I would like to ask (and would be most grateful) if mainnet page could be updated with an additional column for l2 variables before this vote passes.

Looks like @indexer_payne already has a PR for this (and tidying up in general), can we get this reviewed and commited?

Good point @cryptovestor, I’ll chase this up with the team

1 Like

Looks like the vote has already passed :sweat_smile: but we’ll ensure we’ve merged that PR before actually releasing the transfer tools (there’s still some ongoing dev work before we can actually deploy them).