Hi @Sergio,
Your topic will be automatically closing in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received, or do you wish to extend community discussion for a further 7 days?
If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.
We look forward to hearing from you.
-Escape
Hi Escape,
Lets go ahead and close it. Is there anything else I need to do in the next phase of the proposal?
Iâm in support of this due to the roughly 30k (presumably mostly) unique holders of OS deeds being far in excess of the current $ape coin only stakers who may or may not be Yuga holders. This in essence has the potential to double the size of the staking community. Now, we all know it wonât work out that way. However, itâs not unreasonable for one to expect a greater than 8% draw.
I voted for this based on its potential to grow the staking ecosystem. But, I am mindful of the comments above. I would prefer the current smart contract not be reworked, and if this AIP passes it is tied to itâs own unique pool.
Thank you @Sergio for your ideas and the ApeCoin DAO community for the thoughtful discussions. A moderator will get in touch with the author to draft the AIP in the appropriate template. Once the AIP is drafted and meets all the DAO-approved guidelines, the proposal will be posted on Snapshot for live official voting at: Snapshot
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. @Sergio please see your messages for the next steps.
-Escape
Interesting thought just a couple questions I had that came to mind:
Would the development of Ape staking create any complications on the ecosystem that is planned for Otherside already?
I saw @Waabam mention Kodas and if decoupling is optional would an Otherdeed with a Koda then have a higher yield / what would happen if it got decoupled after a deed was staked and was able to be recoupled to a new one?
I know these are hypothetical scenarios but the lack of definition we have on some otherside related things seems to be a separate scenario than the climate that the Apes had.
Iâm def open to learning more here, and could be off base.
This is a great question; this actually inspires the same question of resources/artifacts as well. Like right now the floor for MAYC land with 4 resources and a rare artifact is âofficiallyâ the same as a 0/0 land out in the boonies. Once Yuga defines a value for resources/artifacts, should those lands get a higher yield?
Interesting thoughts. Maybe wanna hold back on this prop until those questions get answered, at the very least the Koda question. Kodas at least have an unofficial value, as one can see on nftfi or any other nft lend/borrow platform. Resources/artifacts truthfully havenât even been valued yet.
The proposal as it stands now doesnât distinguish between Otherside deeds. All deed holders would get the same yield, similar to all BAYC holders receiving the same yield regardless of ape rarity.
The biggest problem with instituting a change of this magnitude, in any form, is simply a matter of increased resource drain. No matter where the funds are reallocated from, adding staking for potentially 100k otherside plots would seriously disrupt the timeline of staking reward distribution. I donât have the numbers available to crunch at the moment. IMO changing the formulation of any yield equation, especially before either working structure or revenue streams are established and battle-tested, is a dangerous game. I am inclined to recommend re-examining this issue in 6-12 months when the environment has more definition.
This topic was automatically closed after 12 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@Sergio has requested to withdraw their application. This AIP will be moved to and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs category.
Kind Regards,
-Pearson