Decrease Staking LockUp Period To 14 Days

Governance & Proposals
1

Attention all LUNC holders, a new proposal 11377 is now up for deposit, make sure to check it out!

Staking has become an increasingly popular way for individuals to earn passive income by supporting blockchain networks. In staking, participants lock up their cryptocurrency to participate in network validation, and in return, receive a share of the network’s rewards. One of the critical aspects of staking is the staking period, which determines how long a participant must lock up their funds. The two most common staking periods are 21 days and 14 days. In this article, we will examine the pros and cons of changing staking periods from 21 days down to 14 days.

Pros of a 14-Day Staking Period

  1. Faster Reward Cycles: Shortening the staking period to 14 days can result in faster reward cycles for participants. With a shorter staking period, participants can earn their rewards more frequently, which can be a significant incentive for users looking to earn passive income.

  2. Flexibility: A shorter staking period provides users with greater flexibility to adjust their staking strategy. In a 21-day staking period, participants must commit their funds for a more extended period, limiting their ability to make adjustments to their strategy.

  3. Reduced Risk: A shorter staking period can help reduce the risk for participants. With a shorter staking period, participants can react faster to market changes, reducing the risk of losses from market volatility.

  4. Increased Liquidity
    A 14-day staking period can provide increased liquidity for participants. When staking for 21 days, participants must lock up their funds for an extended period, limiting their access to their cryptocurrency. With a shorter staking period, participants have more frequent opportunities to access their cryptocurrency and can quickly move funds between staking and trading.

  5. Improved Network Security
    While some argue that a shorter staking period could lead to reduced network security, others suggest that it could actually improve network security. In a 21-day staking period, validators have an extended period to accumulate voting power, which can lead to centralization. With a 14-day staking period, the distribution of voting power is more frequent, potentially reducing the risk of centralization and improving network security.

Cons of a 14-Day Staking Period

  1. Higher Transaction Costs: A shorter staking period can result in higher transaction costs for participants. With a 14-day staking period, participants must initiate more frequent staking transactions, which can result in higher transaction fees.

  2. Potentially lower Security: Shortening the staking period can also result in lower network security. With a shorter staking period, there is less time for validators to detect and address potential security issues, leaving the network more vulnerable to attacks.

  3. Less Network Stability: A shorter staking period can result in less network stability. With a shorter staking period, there is more frequent turnover among validators, leading to less network stability and potentially longer block confirmation times.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a 14-day staking period may be better than a 21-day staking period for several reasons. A shorter staking period provides faster reward cycles, greater flexibility, reduced risk, increased liquidity, and potentially improved network security. However, there are also potential downsides to a shorter staking period, including higher transaction costs, lower network security, and less network stability. Ultimately, the decision between a 21-day or 14-day staking period will depend on the specific needs and preferences of the staking participants and the network they are supporting.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article on the advantages of a 14-day staking period. We hope that this article has been informative and helpful in understanding the potential benefits of a shorter staking period. At LuncLive, we strive to provide valuable and insightful content that helps our readers make informed decisions about their investments and staking strategies.

We appreciate your continued support and look forward to providing you with more high-quality content in the future. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. Thank you again for your time and attention, and we wish you the best of luck with your staking endeavors.

Sincerely,

Matt’s Market Co Owner LuncLive Validator.

6 Likes
2

We need stronger capital flight controls, not weaker. This benefits only whales who yo-yo the chain.

A 21-day lockup is already more than generous enough, reducing it further is incredibly harmful. If your proposal were to pass it will further neuter an already frail capital-flight defense mechanism whose presence is one of the few stabilizing factors keeping this whole thing together. What you’re proposing we do is rip off the duct tape and let the scaffolding fall apart.

Also keep in mind any USTC repeg plan will depend on LUNC collateralization as well, in one form or another.

It’s a NO WITH VETO from Rabbi, mostly because this will irreparably harm the chain on multiple levels.

Shalom! :pray:

7 Likes
3

I agree with this proposal to reduce the staking time to 14 days, I believe it’s a good idea and I will be voting YES if this proceeds to vote with my validator JESUSisLORD (it’s also part of my validator roadmap).

14 days will incentivise more people to stake which will provide extra security also. The last week of waiting during undelegation is especially painful.

14 days is sufficient to counter high volatility, but gives a better balanced approach. There is more flexibility and control of your stake, without compromising network security.

I support this proposal and I think we could see a lot more people stake with this change.

3 Likes
4

I like the idea of an option of a shorter staking period. I’d like to see a sliding tax scale for those who do want to withdraw earlier than the current 21 day period to pay a tax 50% to burns 50% to the community pool.

5 Likes
5

I agree with @RabbiJebediah and I do not think it’s a good idea. Unstaking should be discouraged.

3 Likes
6

NO from me. Reducing unstaking period will impact on market capital with price action. People will stake and unstake frequently. We should discourage people to unstake to reduce the supply.

3 Likes
7

“Faster Reward Cycles: Shortening the staking period to 14 days can result in faster reward cycles for participants.”

This is not correct. Rewards for staked LUNC are calculated every few seconds and can be withdrawn at any time and as many times as one likes.

8

I agree with you. For example
50% for 1 day
30% for 5 days
20% for 10 days
15% for 15 day

This may make investors easier design to stake. They will not afraid to miss the opportunity to undelegate and sell at higher price or in the crisis day.

1 Like
9

That’s correct. We need more security not less, more days not less. I’ll say more: let’s add a 48hr staking freeze time protection. If you stake lunc, you cannot unstake for 48hrs. this is an extra security measure. if a man wants to secure 100% of his wallet, he needs simply to stake 1 more lunc/day.

10

I’ll say more:

  1. 48h security lock

let’s add a 48hr staking freeze time protection. If you stake lunc, you cannot unstake for 48hrs. this is an extra security measure. if a man wants to secure 100% of his wallet, he needs simply to stake 1 more lunc/day.

  1. Unstaking penality

The thing we can do is to introduce the possibility of an earlier unstaking with penality.

21 days unstake > 0% penality ( regular unstake, 100% of tokens are returned )

14 days unstake > 1% penality ( so 1% of tokens are not returned but burned )

7 days unstake > 2% penality ( so 2% of tokens are not returned but burned )

1 Like
11

Matt would be open to an ammendment to this? What I have in mind is to keep an existing undelegation period but also create an option to unstake earlier with a percentage sent to the burn wallet.
I came over to LUNC from CURVE which has 4 YEAR lockup period if you are looking for maximum staking rewards and maximum voting power. The APR is also much lower than LUNC has. This system is in place to control inflation - something we also struggle with. By making unstaking easier we are basically releasing additional supply to the market - whic means lower price.
Imo we should aim to disencourage this sort of movement. IMO if someone wants to exit earlier, which would be a cool feature still, then they should contribute to the supply burn. In that case I wouldnt have a problem with it.
I think we need to realise that LUNC still has attractive APR and we can use this to our advantage.

Other thing that affects us in a bad way in terms of price action are ppl withdrawing and selling staking rewards too, but this is a separate subject.

2 Likes
12

Hi. I don’t think we need to reduce the lock time of coins in staking. I think we need to create a fee-based feature that allows immediate cancellation of delegation for a massive burn wallet fee. If it were 10%, the immediate cancellation of the delegation would indeed cause an increase in the circulating supply, but at the same time it would massively reduce the total supply.

Coins should not only be locked up. Coins are to be traded, and most importantly, we are to USE them. What is the point of a coin that I only have to lock for 4 years? It gives me goosebumps. We need a coin lock system with a paid quick release to wallet feature.

This is my proposal:

13

we should use the feature to 50 percent and 50 percent to oracle

15

Appreciate the time and thought process that went into compiling this article. Personally I’d prefer to have an option available to decide on both periods. A 14 day would be subject to a penalty % fee that could be directed in equal proportion to burn and comm pool.

16

I’m afraid this proposal is not far-fetched enough. In fact, I think we should EXTEND this time from 21 days to 30 days, but at the same time offer people the possibility of immediate cancellation of the delegation in which a high burn tax will be applied.

Fast undelegate (1)
Fast undelegate (1)750×1624 120 KB

https://classic-agora.terra.money/t/instant-undelegation-with-10-burn-tax/