The issues with pooling and how Vedelegate does it are:
Vedelegate doesn’t check people eligibility to vote
You can pool with them and have 0 sustainable actions
This means the passport security feature is bypassed and you can sybil with Vedelegate to bump up an apps weekly allocation
@vineet-codes and @SunnyluV
Can you help here as the passport security feature was proposed by Sunny and it should not be allowed to bypass it through pooling services!
@SunnyluV @vineet-codes one last thought would moving back to quadratic rewards not also be an option to flatten the advantage from pooling services?
Thats not true, the voting power (and thats the big negative about the veB3TR Pool), is diminished a lot. Sybil voting to improve allocation is impossible through it. For regular pools everyone needs a passport.
Quadratic however would indeed make pooling (veB3TR/VeStation) obsolete, but also lower all rewards to the square root of what its now.
Do you feel that going back to quadratic rewards would reintroduce some of the Sybil problems we’ve had in the past?
And would you support a tweak to the GM NFT system that would cap/limit the total rewards a GM NFT could receive as a % of the overall voting reward emission?
1 Like
In my opinion, the situation has not changed and we would be at the same spot. So yes. I also personally prefer linear rewards too, it simplifies at lot and opens the system for more financial applications.
Its not about me to support anything, I don’t know what might be the best way here, there are also users that have a lot of VOT3 in their wallets. Check the rich list:
- #1 is VeStations Pool with 9M
- #2 veB3TRs Pool with 5M
- #3 a single User wallet with 4M
… where do you draw the line? With what argument? Especially if at one point someone pays 25M for the highest upgrade.
As mentioned, I agree that there’s a felt unfairness with pools, but they also have their downsides (for example security risk, less voting impact, fees, etc.).
The reason being that right now with the GM NFT capped at Mercury, the felt effect is minimized 1.2 to 1 for pooled users vs regular non-pooled users.
But as the GM NFT upgrades are released this year, that disparity will only be drastically amplified.
Like you said, quadratic rewards would fix this, but we don’t seem like we’re there yet. The GM NFT system was constructed with quadratic rewards in mind, so it feels broken in our current system.
Just trying to be proactive rather than reactive on a possible solution before it becomes problematic.
We are planning on putting forth a proposal, but like you, we also want to be transparent about it and also gather support.
A cap on GM NFT rewards as a % of weekly voting rewards seems like a fair fix, at least a way to mitigate some of the disparity as these higher level GM NFTs are released.
Otherwise, all users will be essentially forced to pool to seek out best rewards.
1 Like
Can you share an example calculation on what this will look like?
I am especially interested in the future upgrades, to an extreme where Galaxy comes in.
@vineet-codes Do you think it is feasible to implement a hybrid reward system between linear and quadric by having the protocol randomly choose whether to distribute linear or quadric rewards in each round?
A hybrid system that randomly chooses in each round how to distribute the rewards could bring more fairness to the DAO.
- It does not completely destroy the advantages of linear but limits the formation of large whales
- Implementing the randomness of the choice of the distribution of the rewards would lower the farm activity which in combination with a dynamic vepassport could even be limited by a lot.
- With a hybrid system, even large pools like veB3TR or VeStation would be limited
2 Likes