As shib whale
i gone vote no or against this proposal
5 Likes
The proposal to activate ARB staking is commendable for its comprehensive approach to introducing utility to the ARB token and encouraging long-term commitment from the community.
A few questions tho:
-
Could you please provide more details on how the proposed ARB staking mechanism would handle potential concerns related to token inflation and its impact on ARBās value over time?
-
What are this proposalās consequences in introducing utility to ARB, and how does it aim to differentiate ARB from other Layer 2 tokens?
4 Likes
handle potential concerns related to token inflation and its impact on ARBās value over time?
Receiving oneās share of the rewards would mean locking up tokens, meaning that 100% apr would be the breakeven point between inflation and deflation, as aside from governance purposes, locked tokens effectively act like burnt tokens until they are unlocked, and people unlocking would mean higher apr to entice others to lock. So while itās inflationary on the face of it, there is actually a reasonable likelihood of it being deflationary, as itās reasonable to assume people will bid (by locking) the apr below 100%, making it effectively deflationary.
Further, any arb used as incentives to pull or retain people on Arbitrum will have somewhere else to go besides being immediately sold, i.e. it gives another option besides farm>dump>repeat.
- What are this proposalās consequences in introducing utility to ARB, and how does it aim to differentiate ARB from other Layer 2 tokens?
In addition to the points discussed in the Broader Implications for Arbitrum and Benefits for Users sections, protocols seeking grants could signal their dedication to Arbitrum by asking for their grant in the staked form of arb. Though this is technically already possible through vesting, the overhead associated with looking after potentially hundreds of vesting schedules could become cumbersome, vs. a dedicated token that offers an income stream in the meantime.
In a similar vein, it will provide a continuation of allocation of arb in the spirit of the original arb airdrop; where the original arb airdrop sought to disperse arb to users of Arbitrum, this seeks to reward continued loyalty towards Arbitrum. It means that those who didnāt immediately sell their airdrop, as well as newcomers to the space that missed the airdrop, have a chance to be rewarded for their loyalty.
5 Likes
%100 agree. This is what we need to focus
6 Likes
I think the proposal isnāt so bad after all
6 Likes
real yield or no yield
5 Likes
Obviously real yield is preferable, but as has been discussed to death in Proposal: Distribution of DAO Revenue to ARB Token Holders, it is likely not feasible with the current regulatory environment, and any proposal in that direction is likely to be contentious at the very least and put Arbitrumās future as a going concern at risk if it passes.
This proposal sets up a technical framework for distributing real yield once the regulatory issues can be sufficiently addressed, and would give Arbitrum DAO some insights on user behaviour vis a vis locking and what is done with the received rewards. This is a baby step towards real yield, not a step away from it.
3 Likes
I agree with you. They should have a multi-tier locking period. I would propose a 30, 90 & 180 day locking period.
I believe that we should focus on creating strategic partnerships with other DAOs and projects who want to build on our platform.
We need to focus on attracting new investment in our blockchain, be that DEXs, dApps, NFT marketplaces, and blockchain infrastructure, security and scalability.
2 Likes
While I like adding utility to ARB via a locking mechanism, exploring a more active use of these locked tokens would be interesting.
Radiant and other protocols have proven Balancerās ve 80/20 model effective at bootstrapping liquidity and providing an alternative to voting in governance with single-sided tokens.
This method, or locking LP tokens on other dexes (potentially combined with automated liquidity management), will drastically increase yield and offset the need to use the total 1.75% inflation as rewards or complement those rewards.
Additionally, this opens an avenue to explore where Dexes and other DeFi protocols can bid with incentives/utility for this locked liquidity. This will increase TVL on Arbitrum, the depth of liquidity of the ARB token, and sequencer revenue for the DAO.
While your point in FAQ #1 is that this is a safer alternative to interacting with DeFi smart contracts, the implementation steps indicate that smart contracts will be involved regardless.
It could be worth exploring a spectrum of lock types with various levels of risk/reward.
IE:
-single-sided lock
-Single-sided lock + lending ARB on money markets
-LP token lock
-ARB perpetuals liquidity (GMX v2)
-Delta neutral vaults
Another matter is whether the alternatives would pass the Foundationās legal counsel scrutiny.
Nonetheless, I favor activating a portion of inflation to reward lockers, though it may be worth exploring variable inflation determined by the quantity of locked ARB versus the overall yearly increase of circulating ARB.
5 Likes
A lot of the reasoning in here is just not true in the sense of how capital markets work. Locking tokens does not create deflation because the expectations of future cashflows remain for locked holders. When inflation exits, people are diluted. When deflation exists, the opposite occurs. Locked tokens still have a claim on future cashflows (in a speculative way at least).
Iām supportive of some locking mechanism in general donāt get me wrong. I just think we need to be fair in the terms we use and what actually is occuring.
4 Likes
as a bigger doge whale
i going to vote yes.
2 Likes
wait, the ARB token contract already exist some logic code like staking? if not, iām not sure we should do this staking, whales would get more motivation to dump. i think $ARB holder get the ETH fee from L2 transaction would be a better choice.
3 Likes