What’s going on here is that voting happens in terms of number of shares of stake. Over time, the amount of JET that a unit of stake is worth changes (eg due to staking rewards).
That makes sense. However imho it makes no sense that the archives are edited and do not retain the values after the vote result.
I think this should be adjusted (if its not complicated) soon for future votes and the current archive should be corrected as soon as a developer has time for this. Gladly I provide my CSVs for comparison. I usually downloaded these only a few hours after the results.
Summary: I am in favor of expanding the Staking rewards.
It was and is a difficult time and many have other things on their minds than participating.
The people who are involved in JET at the current time should be rewarded in my opinion. Possibly also reward the participation per proposal to encourage the activity.
Quantifiable and measurable goal?
All 11 proposals average
-7% Participation change
Maybe using these values, define a realistic goal.
The volatility of participation change up to -35% should be considered in defining the goal.
Favor the participation by staking rewards so that people dont unstake and dont stop continue participate in JET.
// I had a twist in the
participants change formula, which is now corrected and the upper image updated.
Yes lets extend… How do we send this to on chain vote? What is taking so long
I agree, 25% would be good too.
It is a good idea to take staking reward out of treasury until sufficient protocol revenues can be distributed in the future.
I support @ezio proposal to extend the staking awards program and would like to suggest a small amendment to it:
- The new awards program will have the basic reward that the stakers will get simply by the virtue of staking their JET tokens.
- There will be a voting/participation award for each proposal (irrespective of whether the vote was to support or to reject a particular proposal).
For the sake of simplicity, we could do a 50/50 split of the total amount of JET tokens allocated to the extended staking awards program, this way, all the stakers will get something out of it, but the active participants in the governance will be rewarded at a higher rate.
Extention of staking rewards for Jet stakers is the best option to support loyality of early adopters and newcommers. On other hand there is hardly possiible to propose more usefull idea, how to keep people being involved in Governance voting rather than unstake their assets and rewards and sell it.
I am with this platform since October 2021 supplying and borrowing assets. I have got airdrop tokens, bought more over and keep all amount staked in Governance. No coins sold since that time.
I am for this proposal. My addition to the proposal is not to limit staking period by 31 March, but leave it for longer time till Governance voting is avaliable and appreciated.
From my point of view, giving extra rewards or encourage people to vote to get “something” is non organic since users will vote just because. At the end of the day, the tokens allocated will be distributed among the stakers and voters who will be the same addresses.
Assuming I’m correct, we would be needing more dev. and strategic resources for implementing this idea but as a results the tokens will be distributed in the same way as before.
Allow me to disagree. I’m pretty sure that despite the additional rewards, quite a few stakers will remain passive, as they are to busy with other stuff, don’t monitor the governance forum and the schedule of upcoming proposals or otherwise just don’t care/want to be really involved and engaged.
Therefore, it’s almost certain that voters would be a smaller subset of the stakers.
Having said that, we definitely don’t want to overburden the devs with unnecessary work, so this could be resolved in a creative manner:
The proposal will include the “voting bonus” as per my suggestion, however it would also state that this bonus will only apply in case where less than 70% of the stakers will vote on a proposal.
The bonus itself (if applicable), could be distributed in a form of an airdrop, so not much additional dev work needs to be done
The Jet Governance Committee is continuing to review options for both incentivizing liquidity and incentivizing stakers. Currently the Jet Core team is focused on responding to recent ecosystem events, so progress on the above has been slowed. Please continue to discuss and debate the options that have thus far been presented.
Its been a week since the last reply.
Its been over a month since this proposal was crafted.
Sufficient consensus has been formed in favor of re-starting staking program, high time the core-committee takes an actionable step for the same.
Thank you for your continued patience.
The Jet Governance Committee is working on a proposal for the community to review, comment and eventually vote on.
While I understand we all would like this to happen faster than it has, we need to be intentional with the proposal and the format of the proposal so that precedent for future governance actions are clear and conducive to decentralized governance.
Finding it pretty frustrating to not see any action. This is what causes governance apathy. Forum members discuss, arrive at a conclusion, but nothing actionable happens after the discussion.
This is how active governance member become inactive.
@ezio Your criticism is valid and fair.
I would like to make a couple of distinctions around this specific proposal as an explanation as to why it is taken as long as it has.
- A novel proposal process is not yet in place. This is the responsibility of the Governance Committee and other governance contributors and is in progress.
- The Jet Core team is heads down focused on delivering critical roadmap features as an exclusive priority. This greatly reduced the capacity for variation in staking rewards implementation.
- The Governance Committee has to be extremely careful about vetting proposals like this. It is dangerous to set a precedent that token holders can at will vote to reward stakers to the detriment of the long term health of the protocol. I don’t think this is the case but you can imagine where such a proposal could be an attack on the protocol.
All that being said the current governance contributors hear the feedback and are working to do better.
Thank you for speaking up with your frustrations.