I agree with this as well, this isn’t a typical validator situation of bad actors. If there is a risk of slashing it could discourage staking
6 Likes
I follow your standalone points in your reply but setting rewards/costs/penalties individually for each stakeholder in the network seems very inefficient.
The economic system of the network should be fluid with the transfer of value between each of the groups named above. How does the network best incentivizes each with a strong and sustainable model?
I don’t think this is it and your proposal lacks a broader picture imo.
Reminder: dApps pay close to non-existent fees for updates and there are no rules on rewards and slashing for data publishers as of today. What are smart ways for stakers to participate more actively in the network’s security (not just staking for voting power) to be rewarded with some sort of APY or else?
And you say it right here:
6 Likes
Well sir as you said yourself “there should be transfer of value between EACH OF THE GROUPS”…
Therefore they should in my opinion and in other peoples opinion (that some commented here already) be treated with seperate models where each is dedicated to a different group. The transfer of value can come after each of group is rewarded in its own way
Also, my proposal doesn’t lack broader picture because it simply focuses on STAKERS and nothing more, just like the other proposal here focuses on data publishers. The proposals can be seperate where each one focuses on a different group in the ecosystem and function perfectly. The other offer you mentioned earlier is great but its got nothing to do with pyth stakers. Each group here has its own purpose and contribution to the system where:
Data publisher are publishing data
Dapps utilizing pyth are bringing that data to the people who use them
Pyth staker are taking part in the decision making
What you mentioned in this part is true but again, making 3 seperate system for each of these groups that each has a different “job” in the network would make much more sense and in addition be much easier and logical to manage in a way that one’s bad behavior wouldnt affect the others rewards and that you could change the structure of any of these 3 systems without affecting the other
[quote=“Pepito, post:22, topic:572”]
Reminder: dApps pay close to non-existent fees for updates and there are no rules on rewards and slashing for data publishers as of today. [/quote]
3 Likes
I totally agree with papichulo…Only reason pyth didnt drop is because stakers didnt get any tokens…because you would have a big sell off and much bigger drop in price…so I wouldnt agree this is the best option…I mean it is good for short term airdrop farmers but as a real project supporter I think thats a bad idea tbh.This IA program is better to distribute unlocked tokens by my opinion
3 Likes
The reason pyth didnt drop any further is simply because there were barely any tokens that were supposed to be going to people who are gonna sell, especially after priced dropped so hard. The price drop was fud of people who dont understand how token unlocks work and sold because of fearing a big unlock selloff which obviously never happened.
Also the 10% distribution out of “ecosystem growth” doesnt mean all 10% immediately go to stakers like you seem to claim here but over a 1 year period as been explained in the proposal. Thus no selloff would have happened if there were staking rewards because the rewards are distributed on a weekly basis.
Plus governance and staking are not related in any way to the program and each of them is a different type of involvement in the network and should recieve different rewards based on their part in the network
3 Likes
This is where we will not agree.
I believe the value must flow/circle between these 3 groups. They should work together (not in silos) to secure the network, and be rewarded or slashed. I do not have a brilliant idea to propose but I hope that this is what the network and DAO will get to figure out.
The other proposal (Addressing the risk of inaccurate Pyth data to increase the security of DeFi - #4 by ed_pyth) could be a stepping stone.
6 Likes
Well as I said myself the other proposal is great but can function more than just as well without pyth stakers being involved.
There are essentially 3 groups of people who deserve rewards for their different parts in the network and again there is absolutely no logical reason for stakers/dapps to be in the risk of their tokens being slashed due to a bad data publisher that didnt do HIS JOB.
There is again no reason to punish dapps and stakers at any point in time for things they didnt do
Just like the point I’m talking about, the different proposals can simply work together but as different proposals since each one puts the focus on a different group in the network where group contributes its part seperately. No point in my honest opinion of dapps that utilize data to take part in anything related to data publishing just like the publishers have no reason to consume their own data
6 Likes
I think it’s a great idea. 
4 Likes
I tend to agree with you ser.
4 Likes
In fact the pyth dao forums now show me great possibilities. It would only make the most sense for pledge if pyth could actually be a passport to governance
1 Like
Very much like ideas
1 Like
Thank you TheDetective for taking the initiative on this proposal! These are super important topics.
I quoted Papi and Pepito above as my first impressions lean towards these considerations.
Nevertheless, I think this is the beginning of potentially very interesting mechanisms for activating community members, especially if it could be combined with new mechanisms for network robustness or additional functionalities.
For example, this other idea for enhanced oracle security could lead to very interesting synergies here (for lack of a better word)…
3 Likes
Well I understand where the concerns are coming from yet they are not a valid reason to put pyth stakers in the risk of their tokens being slashed due to a bad behavior of data publishers
The publisher rewards/slashing and staker/voter rewards can and should in my opinion be functioning as 2 different systems that essentially contribute to the growth of the same network. There is no reason for stakers to take responsibility on someone else’s data publishing just like for example there is no reason for the data publishers to pay themselves for the data they publish (thats the “consumers” job). The other proposal you mentioned is great but still has nothing to do with stakers just like my offer has got nothing to do with the data publishers.
Another point is that just like you are concerned that people will vote just to get rewarded (which is not very different from whats already happenning where people vote without reading deeply what they vote for and just vote for the sake of voting) people will likely choose to stake for platform they know/like the most and not for the best data publisher by the actual statistics and as a result the quality of the data which is published will likely decrease and thats the exact opposite of what the proposal is trying to do
4 Likes
Thank you for sharing this idea Detective!
Like many mentioned before, a lot of community members were curious as to why why there are no rewards for staking.
I do share the same concern as some of the people before - people just vote and stake for the sake of getting rewards doesn’t seem like the most sustainable model.
You are absolutely right about the fact that voting and staking has nothing to do with the grants program however imo it is a better way to reward people who are actually interested in the growth of community and ecosystem as whole rather than giving away tokens on a weekly basis to people who are pressing buttons for stimmies.
And I am saying this as a mere holder and staker just like the rest of the people.
Thank you again for your proposal! You’re definitely onto something sir!
3 Likes
Well sir I believe that just like people who take part in the grants program recieve their rewards there’s no reason for stakers and voters to not recieve their reward. I mean it’s a bit unfair in my opinion to reward a certain part of the network participants while essentially “ignoring” others.
Also, I definetly agree that there are many people who will just stake pyth to earn rewards and nothing more however, there are more than enough pyth stakers who truly want to help this grow and there’s no reason to basically “punish” them by not giving them any credit (rewards) for their work because others are not contributing as much.
In the end of the day both “good” and “bad” stakers are stakers and even if the “bad” ones don’t care as much about the network growth their staked tokens are still a contribution to the network and thus it deserves to get rewarded
5 Likes
Everyone is welcome to join our grants program though. There is no limit to 20-30 people who can earn awards. PYTH and the community in particular have been promoting it ever since it went live. I believe it’s the matter of how much people really want to understand and participate in the ecosystem.
Yes, I completely agree with you that people who staked their tokens deserve to be rewarded since they are securing our network and more and that is very important. But the problem is that the majority of them don’t even know or realize this fact since they staked their token to get “rewards” in the first place. Grants program is a fun and rewarding way to get to know the community and actually get the stimmies.
I would like to stress out that is my opinion as a holder and staker.
4 Likes
The majority of stakers in pretty much 99% of the networks in the crypto space just stake for the rewards however it doesnt mean they dont have to secure the network or contribute to it in any kind of way just like everyone else. Whether these people realize what they do or not they still do it and therefore deserve a reward for that.
The grants program is actually really good and I support every part of it but the fact that people like you and me think it’s a very good thing doesn’t mean that others like the way it works. It might be great for me for example but over complicated or too technical for someone else and we must think of these people too as they deserve rewards as much as people who participate in the grants program do.
The problem here is that I think that community members with “better knowledge” on the network dont think of the ones with less understansing and technicality too much and kind of been putting them aside.
My offer is not only because I want rewards for myself which I obiously wouldnt refuse to get but for the whole community and all the stakers, including those with the little knowledge in comaprison
4 Likes
We have 140k wallets that are staking PYTH right now according to the recent data on Dune. Firstly, it is practically impossible to know all of them. Secondly, I would disagree very much on the point that people with “better knowledge” disregard and maybe even look down on other stakers or people who are simply interested in PYTH community and lurking around.
If you spend a day within PYTH Discord, for instance, you will see nothing but great vibes and everyone willing to help no matter what’s the person’s role is.
I wouldn’t mind rewards from voting and staking myself, don’t get me wrong. But if we look at the broader picture, I highly doubt all 140k people staked their PYTH because they are interested in the ecosystem. The bigger percentage of this demographics did it because they wanted rewards which ARE being distributed already and earnt quite easily, to be fair.
What happens when the faucet is empty? How will it impact the people who are committed to the development of the ecosystem and are not here just for rewards? They are a smaller percentage, no doubt, but they still do all the very same things others are doing. Like PapiChulo said, it makes me nervous.
Thank you for this conversation Detective!
4 Likes
Since there are over 80k discord members I believe its fair to say that the MAJORITY of pyth stakers are in fact interested in the network’s development and growth and are not here to farm rewards therefore its also fair to say that the majority are “worthy” of rewards according what you say here.
And again, I think you are missing the other point of view of the other people, unlike you and I for instance, to whom the grants program is a little to technical in parts of it or too complicated in others. The fact they struggle to understand the grants program or even dont have enough time in their schedule to take part in it doesnt mean these people dont want to contribute to the network as much as they can in their way and thats exactly what I’m trying to adress here with this whole proposal
Lastly, once all the tokens are unlocked that incentive of any type of rewards to anyone will kind of be eliminated and the only thing that will remain money wise will probably be fees which arent really massive.
Until then, there is no reason to not reward stakers as they are still contributors to the network, and regardless of the work they put into the network, they are worthy of rewards. Whether they stake just to farm rewards or to actually help the network doesnt matter because the facts are that by staking they indeed help the network regardless of their intentions.
New future usecases for pyth would be an option in my opinion to try and keep particiption as high as possible but thats not the point of the discussion
Appreciate the discussion
4 Likes
Thank you for the feedback.
Its a very good idea actually sir I would happily support it.
Maybe even a mechanism where you must vote at least once and only on the second time you vote on-chain of course you get rewarded
1 Like