I’d have to agree that the voting system is quite centralized now at least from the data I could find but the “common people” still have a decent portion in the voting and can still make a difference despite top 25 stakers holding the majority of the staked tokens.
Maybe perhaps creating a system where each account simply has one vote but the rewards are distributed based on the amount staked so that an account with 1k tokens and account with 1m tokens both have 1 vote but the 1m account gets bigger reward for the voting.
The difference is first of all that ETH and SOL have no supply cap and second of all, in both of these networks the tokens are used for actual block validating and for voting in the network while in here the publishers dont need any type of tokens to simply publish data. They collect info and bring it from their platform or whatever else to the pyth network but they dont need any tokens to do that. The staking is to make sure they act right and punish/reward them when theres a need to do that. Therefore there is no need for the community to take part in this process as they got nothing to do with the collection or publishing of the data.
This doesn’t matter. ETH is deflationary while SOL is inflationary, or they can have capped supply as other chains do.
You can change this and make it a requirement for a publisher. Again moving to a proof of stake model would include that.
Not sure I understand the difference here between a validator for a Chain or a validator for Pyth. Why cant they essentially work the same way.
Maybe you don’t want to delegate tokens to publishers, and would prefer to earn smaller rewards for voting only. Some others would definitely be keen on staking Pyth and delegating to publishers to earn much higher rewards!
Pyth is an oracle product of the solana blockchain that provides oracle services to different apps and blockchains in the crypto space and outside of it. Thats the major difference here as pyth isnt an actual blockchain with blocks of its own and a scanner and all that but a blockchain based product and for your idea to function you need to create an entire pyth based blockchain.
Publishers having to stake in order to participate and get rewarded/slashed in proportion to the quality and accuracy of the data they provide is a great idea that definetly should be implemented and yet stakers got nothing to do with it.
Its as simple as that:
Publishers stake a certain amount of tokens to apply for being a data provider
Publishers collect data and publish it
The most accurate data provider by statistics is given the most rewards + gets more weight and impact on the overall published data until the next epoch happens (where new statistics thats been collected over that week are published to determine who was the best publisher of the week)
Bad behavior and inaccurate data is being punished by slashing tokens
And again, not a single reason for stakers to take part in this thing…
I’d like to hear if you have a logical reason for why the stakers should take part in this and why and how exactly do you think stakers taking part in this program of publisher rewards would benefit the program
This approach would not work as it becomes easy to Sybil. Additionally, it makes sense for an account with a higher economic stake in the network to have more power to decide its future.
As you mentioned, Pyth is not a POS blockchain. Under the current system, staking simply involves depositing Pyth into the staking contract so they can be used for governance. While there are interesting discussions about fostering economic security through publisher staking/slashing mechanisms, these require a reworking of the current staking model rather than just adding incentives on top of the existing one.
I agree on this one and as I said earlier I also believe that the power of each account in the voting should be proportionate to the amount of tokens they have staked.
In addition, as I explained to someone else here, I still dont see a logical reason for stakers to be involved in the data publishers program thats being discussed that would actually benefit the ecosystem and the stakers and will result better data quality and accuracy.
I dont think theres anything wrong about stakers essentially being the governance of the network and making the important decisions while publishers working in their own program (that includes staking + rewards/slashing) to publish data.
A valid reason to let stakers participate in such a data publishers program would be increasing the amount of slashable collateral that protects price feeds. If the stake requirements for publishers are very high some publishers might prefer sharing some of their rewards with delegators to attract sufficient stake instead of having to stake a huge amount of their own capital.
First of all, there should be a reasonable amount required from publishers to be staked as depending on community to provide that for you (just like you said “if the requirements are very high”) is not sustainable as people with big portion of the publisher’s stake might wanna rightfully unstake his token and then that publisher might not be able to participate because it wont have the minimum. Thus, every provider will have to provide its own tokens to actually independently participate in the publishing having 0% chance of falling below that required amount which also bring us to the conclusion that stakers are NOT needed for that process to happen.
Besides, as I explained here before, publishers’ impact on the prices that are published to the public should be proportionate to the accuracy and quality of the data they publish and must be measured by numbers and statistics to determine who has provided the “best” data at a certain period of time. This way, the weight that each publisher gets will be determined by 100% facts
Another edit to adress the issue of people do not always vote due to lack of time and /or understanding and prefer trusting someone else with their voting power so that their voice is still heard
This is why the stakers will be encouraged to DYOR and understand more information about publishers. Without involving the community how can we say that Pyth is community lead? We want to be decentralized and that comes with shared risk and reward!
In society we rely on other parties like Firefighters, Police, Judges and Doctors to work for the best interest of society! I think allowing the masses to tie their stakes with the providers they believe in, is the way of governance.
Communiry lead is letting the community make the important decision, just like the pyth DAO alredy does. The community is already involved in the project its just that it hasn’t got rewarded for that yet.
And once again sir, the fact that it suits better in people’s head to rely on someome else and that people feel more familiar with it doesnt mean its the right thing to do foe this specific scenario.
Plus and most importantly, the community doesnt get jail time or a fine or any kind of punishment when a cop, doctor, fireman or anyone else doesnt do their job properly or does something bad that he should do right? Therefore by YOUR LOGIC it should be happening here as well and no staker should be punished for a bad behavior of a data publisher
“Plus and most importantly, the community doesnt get jail time or a fine or any kind of punishment when a cop, doctor, fireman or anyone else doesnt do their job properly or does something bad that he should do right?”
→ This is absolutely wrong, when people in authority don’t do their job people die and things get screwed up. If the police doesn’t uphold the societies rules it will result in chaos. If a doctor does a mistake in surgery people die. When country leaders people give power to, leverage power for self gain people suffer. I feel like your totally missing the point here as I’ve proven above stakers should be tied together with data publishers, that is what will create the most efficient and powerful system when incentives/punishments are aligned…
The Pyth Dao is rewarding for people already as it allows stakers to voice their opinions and influence the direction of Pyth which is legit powering our DEFI. I don’t think we should allocate more rewards for “participation”, Pyth already has their stimulus initiative in discord + the various roles that are rewarded for active community members.
“The community is already involved in the project its just that it hasn’t got rewarded for that yet.” → This is also wrong, and short sighted…in order to participate in the Pyth Dao you need to own $PYTH and therefore any community involvement that helps Pyth HELPS our bags
Why must we give even more rewards for participation. If we should give more rewards it should be related to improving Pyth’s core oracle product which is what the other proposal addresses.
If we want Pyth to grow we don’t do it by giving people free Pyth for voting but by aligning our whole collective towards one objective and sharing the risk/rewards together. We will go to success or failure together, those who don’t believe will sell
Aligned. Voting for rewards has shown some big problems with other protocols and DAOs in my opinion and the reason why Councils were introduced in the Pyth DAO constitution. To fight voter apathy and voting without reading.
When was the last time Pyth stakers voted? No DAO-wide vote means no rewards. Only constitutional PIPs require this and they are not so frequent.
I would not be in favour of rewards for voting. My motto is always no risk no reward.
No country pays its citizens to vote - the right to vote is granted in some democracies, and exercised by those who want to participate in nation building. In the various staking proposals I have seen, I find CMS proposal to be most though out, inclusive and aligns everyone involved - the broad community, publishers and stakers.
to be honest - the downside for being eligible for these rewards is not having liquid tokens - i.e. having tokens locked. Also, with token dilution (occurring with every unlock), there’s also implied risk. So, might not be necessary to add additionally penalties here.
sir I still do not think you get my idea here. I want both ideas to exist but I believe that one for publishers and one for stakers will be the right way to do that.
Publishers should get rewarded/slashed according to their performance but their performance has got nothing to do with stakers who have no impact on how publishers perform and therefore shouldn’t be rewarded or slashed for what publishers do. there’s no reason to allocate "publisher rewards’ in my opinion to people who don’t take part in this and directly publish data to the network.
As I already explained, you can NEVER force people to actually go deeply into what they’re voting for and even if they say they do you cant make sure it actually happened. There will always be those who just vote for the sake of voting but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reward the “good ones” because of it. What we can do is incentivize active participation to which the stakers ARE INDEED RESPONSIBLE to maximize the amount of people who vote. Also, my proposal also states that we should slash tokens from inactive users, therefore slashing people will be a result of their own actions or in this case inactivity.
Thats a very good point and I agree on that if ai understood you correctly.
However, as my proposal states, slashing tokens will only occur when somebody has not participated in over 80% of the votes in a defined period of time which is in my opinion a very fair and logical reason to slash somebody’s tokens and basically encourage active participation in the DAO activities
