Rewarded force-close mechanism to eliminate stale allocations

It may be worth repeating, but the main reason I’m against slashing stake is that for MIPS we want to have long-lived micro-allocations. It becomes obvious from this example that what actually matters and what we want to measure is whether an allocation represents query capacity. It is possible to have short allocations without serving queries, and it is possible to have long allocations that do serve queries. If a stable state exists where an Indexer does not need to rebalance their stake cross allocations (and some Indexers may exist to serve a single subgraph!) then forcing them to go through this process is meaningless and not cost effective.

There are 2 issues we need to focus on with the protocol at large:

  1. Optimizing for the external effects of changes
  2. Cost efficiency

I actually think this is suboptimal because it only rewards the Indexer who submits the PoI, so doesn’t satisfy the requirement that other Indexers are indifferent to stale allocation behavior. It also potentially creates a race for Indexers to submit PoIs, driving up gas costs.

This is a good observation, but it’s fairly trivial to compute the Indexer’s delegation ratio and scale the penalties for this or other mechanisms accordingly.