Thank you for this.
So then the choices on offer would be:
All funds removed from the network, be them by indexer or delegator, should remain subject to the 28 day thaw, and we simply fix the issue of the 1 year lock wallet for indexer rewards and do nothing else, for now
Both Indexers and Delegators should be able to remove rewards immediately
Now, I tend to believe that while The Stated Mission of The Graph Foundation has nothing to do with encouraging the price of GRT to rise (and there are good reasons for this) if we are all holders of GRT engaging in self-governance it would be wise to keep the price effects of the actions we take in mind. To that end- if accrued rewards can be used to “time the market” so easily, this will could have a dampening effect on the price of GRT. With a 28 day unthaw you can still attempt to time the market… once you’ve waited at least 28 days. 28 days is not a very long time for anyone who plans to be with the project for multiple years.
Why should a struggling small indexer care about price dampening? Because, an indexer with a $2m stake will accrue much less in rewards than an indexer with a $140m stake. A small indexer who is unsure of whether or not they will be able to stay afloat should be quite interested in maintaining a high price of GRT, as they may need to cash that stake out sooner than others. And if the whole point of indexers drawing rewards more actively is to help them pay their bills (which I support!) then the price of GRT being higher will mean these indexers can pay more bills on less GRT. Likewise, the largest indexers have shown the most willingness/ability to accumulate large amounts of GRT. We should be careful not to make it easier for them to also suppress the price of GRT in the short term if they still have a mind to keep accumulating more.
So- any proposal to eliminate 28 day thaws for indexers that does not also eliminate 28 day thaws for delegators is inherently unequitable. And removing the 28 day thaw for indexers may have ramifications that should worry small indexers and delegators alike (in the interest of brevity I limited myself to one potential issue. I could think of some more, if anyone needs me to).
Additionally- it seems wrong-headed to suggest that indexers need to be able to withdraw immediately or that a 28 day thaw adds un unreasonable burden. For anyone who is not familiar with “net 30 billing” it is incredibly common practice amongst real-world service providers, and it works. You simply need to be able to manage a budget that is based on revenue projections that are always a month out. In this scenario, since all economic activity gets filtered through GRT (which obviously wont pay your electric bill) you should think of it as net 30 selling.
All of this leads me to think we might not want to eliminate any of the 28 day thaws just yet, and need to come up with stronger justifications the next time we propose to do so.
I also will conclude with this:
The parties who wish to enact the most fundamental changes to the system have the burden of proof, not those who are seeking to maintain what they view as virtuous components of it.
We should all take a step back and acknowledge that we are walking into a brand new, but thoroughly designed ecosystem here, and remember also that it was designed to service queries. If we make any changes to the dynamics before queries start being served, we need to be very careful to fully account for all knock-on effects that may arise due to those changes, on top of the already stated imperative of balancing all stakeholder interests equitably.