First of all, what we are all participating in is a financial activity, so who will participate if there is no benefit? Just like this Trump election, why is it supported by the encryption circle? It is obvious that if Trump is elected successfully, it will be a great benefit to the encryption circle, because Trump is also a representative of the encryption circle. The same goes back to PYTH. If you want the community to be active and active, then rewards are a must. How can ordinary people also benefit? How can pledgers benefit? Everyone can participate together and win together. There will always be two voices in the market. We should listen to the majority of voices, then discuss, study and then implement.
Sounds good to me. Definitely positive for the ecosystem and its participants. Staking and governance should always be rewarded. Let’s go!
2 Likes
In my opinion, staking awards are not a bad idea, in fact, they are a great idea. However, such a long time to “freeze” their funds will scare away a very large part of investors. Let’s not hide, but by the future release of tokens most people will no longer be in the project.
I support this staking and governance model. It will be a solid improvement for the Pyth ecosystem. The ideal rewards structure for voting seems unclear, but I think this is a great approach to take and see how it plays out.
1 Like
How are we going on getting this put forward as an idea to vote on?
Since Pyth fees are paid in the native token of the network, would it be an idea to include a proposal for these fees to be used to by and burn PYTH? Seems like a way to generate a healthy economy.
1 Like
I agree sir, it would actually be really cool bringing some more usecases for the pyth token.
Unfortunately I cant personally do anything too much in making this go forward besides requesting for that to happen which I already did as I firstly dont have enough tokens to bring this proposal on-chain and secondly I’m not a team member or anything similar so even if take it forward to at least forum voting it wont really get the recognition it should when a team member does that and creates a poll on it.
I have actually already asked the team to let the community vote on the different staking mechanism proposals so that the community would be able to decide which one should goes through. Unluckily it seems like the other proposal is being promoted by the team instead of bringing it into forum voting.
Trust me I will try my best bringing this proposal to AT LEAST forum voting to see the community’s opinion on which proposal should we proceed with but remeber that I’m only a single person with not too much influence in comparison
2 Likes
Absolutely, I see your efforts! I am trying to build up my rank here in the forum so that I can create a post… I will keep interacting so one day I can publish my draft 
2 Likes
I think that proposals should have a maximum discussion time
which was an idea i read from @gnarleyquinn in Discord.
we had a lot of discussions from the past and it just went completely silent, so i guess everyone might have said everything they can.
Maybe its time to have someone step up and set the next step?
We kinda did it with the subdomain.
1 Like
I agree, I also believe the discussion has concluded.
I actually asked the team already about a week ago to make a poll so that the people would be able to choose between the 2 different staking proposals.
I thought it would be a better idea if they make this poll and not me because it would gain more attention and traction ad therefore more people would likely participate in this forum voting.
If you know how to create such poll in the forum I would love for some help and even if you dont another person asking the team for this poll so we can go forward with this might be helpful
1 Like
I also agree that discussion has concluded, its the reason the topic went silent. and if more time will pass, ill probably have to read again!
will ask about the poll, could you tag me in Discord and mention who you asked about it?
it is easy to create a poll, although as you’ve said, it is probably best to come from the team
2 Likes
Did anything end up happening with this? I was curious
Its been 25 days since we thought about moving forward
for actual sustainability, i think a percentage of protocol revenue should be used to reward stakers for taking smart contract risk and opportunity costs.
2 Likes
As a Pyth user and supporter, I am against the idea of taking tokens back from those who do not participate in the vote. On the contrary, I think there should be ideas to encourage more users.
1 Like
As a pyth user and supporter i think it good to stake their pyth tokens to get reward and also the voting rewards is a good choice for who participant or who not
1 Like
How about including US residents in staking?
Including U.S. residents in Pyth Network staking is both a strategic opportunity and a reflection of the rapidly evolving crypto landscape in the United States. Here are compelling reasons to make U.S. participation a priority:
-
Demographic Momentum: Between 14–28% of U.S. adults now report owning crypto, a share that is not only substantial but is rising at an explosive rate—particularly as institutional adoption accelerates and mainstream platforms expand access. With over 40 million Americans now involved, excluding this user base misses out on a dynamic, engaged segment.
-
Policy Tailwinds: The current U.S. administration has signaled a constructive stance toward crypto innovation, working to clarify regulations and foster a more welcoming environment for blockchain projects. This increased regulatory clarity and positive policy shift open the door to compliant and secure staking participation for American users, while managing risk for the protocol.
-
Network Resilience & Governance: U.S. participants bring significant technical diversity, capital, and professional expertise to on-chain governance. By allowing American stakers, Pyth unlocks access to a broad pool of builders, data publishers, and forward-thinking projects—driving decentralization and meaningful community participation.
-
Ecosystem Growth: Staking incentives have proven to be a powerful driver for network effect. Given the robust appetite for both yield and governance participation among sophisticated U.S. retail and institutional investors, opening staking ensures Pyth’s security budget and participation scale in step with global demand for Web3 infrastructure.
-
Reputation & Network Effects: Including U.S. stakers aligns Pyth Network with major protocols that embrace a global, permissionless ethos. With the U.S. at the forefront of DeFi, fintech, and institutional blockchain adoption, participation is a signal of maturity—as well as a magnet for further integration and liquidity.
-
Empowering Responsible Participation: With clear terms (e.g., minimum age, technical knowledge, understanding of risks) and a compliant interface, Pyth can enable American users to stake responsibly within regulatory requirements.
In summary: With demographic momentum, policy alignment, and institutional firepower all trending upward in the United States, including U.S. residents in Pyth Network staking is not just an option—it’s a catalyst for the protocol’s next phase of growth, decentralization, and value creation.
Let’s unlock the full potential of Pyth Network—together with the builders, innovators, and advocates driving crypto adoption in the world’s largest economy 
.
1 Like
Good afternoon everyone… I would like to include this topic in this thread: Do you guys stake on Pyth? I was checking to add more Pyth to stake, but there’s a slashing thing that scared me. We, as delegates, can lose up to 5% of our capital if a bar is issued against the publisher we chose. I don’t understand. Why not just penalize the responsible controller and data provider? The publisher already benefits from us via Pyth because of our delegation, and if they don’t provide a good data service, we’ll pay together…? I wanted to ask @mod how we can put forward a governance proposal for the community to vote on and change this reality… It doesn’t make sense to stake to earn passive income, when you can go to sleep with 1 million Python in the pool and wake up with 950k just because the publisher was punished, you too, and everyone else in the pool as a result. I look forward to understanding the possibilities. Thank you in advance.
The original topic is unrelated to OIS. But I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Here’s a quick answer to your point:
Slashing is a key part of how OIS incentivizes publishers to provide high-quality data. By exposing regular (non-publisher) stakers to slashing risk, the system motivates them to carefully research and choose the most reliable publishers to delegate their stake to. This creates a strong incentive for publishers to maintain a good track record, since the highest quality publishers will attract more delegators, and benefit from the delegation fee those stakers pay.
If regular stakers were not exposed to slashing, they don’t have to care which publisher they stake with, and they would be providing no “service” or “value” to the system. This would undermine the entire incentive structure, as delegators would have no stake in the quality of the data, and publishers would not be held accountable by the community. By sharing both the rewards and the risks, the system ensures that everyone is aligned toward maintaining the integrity and performance of the network.
Be happy to chat more on Discord.
1 Like
I like the spirit of this proposal — using the ecosystem growth allocation to reward active stakers and voters makes sense and could help strengthen DAO participation. At the same time, I see a few areas where the model could be improved:
Lock-up of rewards
Instead of making rewards immediately liquid, consider adding a short vesting or lock-up (e.g. 3–6 months). This would reduce short-term sell pressure while still providing strong incentives.
Dynamic allocation
Rather than a fixed 10% of each unlock, the share could adjust depending on staking participation. For example, if the staking rate is low, the system could allocate more to incentives, and if participation is already high, it could allocate less.
Voting rewards
The current design pays the same 0.1% (increasing over time) regardless of how people vote. To avoid “mechanical voting” just for rewards, it may help to cap the percentage (e.g. 0.2% maximum) or add a quality component, such as long-term participation bonuses.
Delegate system
The idea of requiring delegates to vote in 80% of proposals with slashing may be too harsh. Instead, a transparent dashboard of delegate performance (participation rates, past positions) would let stakers make better choices, and under-performing delegates would simply lose delegations naturally.
Funding diversification
Incentives don’t have to rely only on the ecosystem growth pool. If the Pyth protocol generates treasury revenue in the future, a portion could also be directed into staking/voting rewards.
Overall, I support the intent of this proposal, but I believe adding vesting, dynamic adjustments, and more flexibility in the delegate model could make it more sustainable and effective for the long term.
I saw someone say that rewarding stakers will lead to selling pressure. Why not think about it from another angle? It is precisely because stakers have nothing that they will lead to selling pressure.