[Discussion] Proposal to reward the long term Alpaca gov stakers

In order to incentivise long-term staking and further reward those who already do, I propose we adjust the reward curve such that the stakers of 48-52 weeks earn a significantly larger apr than 47 weeks and below.

Where the extra reward comes from is up to discussion, but I feel that reducing the rewards from 1–12 weeks and adding it to the end of the cure (48-52 weeks).

There are three main benefits as I see it:

  1. encourages long term staking and regular renewal (active as you would need to log in to extend every 4 weeks) of long term staking.
  2. Rewards users who are truly committed to Alpaca and who are holding for the long term
  3. May result in increased revenue from early withdrawal fees which are used for burning token, thus rewarding holders further.

All of this is up for discussion of course. But it’s a fairly simple adjustment as no external funds are required. We would just be taking the rewards from the early end of the curve and redistributing them to the end of the curve.

I highly agree with the sentiment but I believe it could be executed differently.

For example, a DeFi protocol I am currently working on built on Ethereum utilizes an exponential curve for staking power calculation.

The formula we use is: governance/rewards power = (total tokens locked) * 1.02^(weeks staked).

On a side note, our staking contract also offers auto renewal which I wish Alpaca Governance vault had


Long-term stakers have more xalpaka → more rewards

1 Like

Yes, more Xalapca but it’s linear rather than exponential or otherwise. I believe further encouragement for holders to stake for the maximum time (and keep renewing their stake) would result in a net gain in locked Alpaca.

There are many ways this could be done, which is why it’d be good to discuss.

Yes there are many ways it could be done. Would like to open that up for discussion too but I like the idea of exponential.

我一直很好奇,当ALPACA释放结束之后,GOV Staker收到的奖励是什么?

I would like to provide an input from a technical perspective.

Changing an xALPACA decay function, unfortunately, is not a trivial task. Whether the new function is polynomial, exponential, or piecewise function, the effort required would be high.

It would require 1+ month of development time.

1 Like

Obviously you know better than me, but I’m amazed to hear this. One month?! Were these systems not designed with recalibration in mind? Its mind-boggling to me that it would take one month to change a function that really ought to have been designed with this exact kind of situation in mind.

  1. Technical work is usually more expensive than it looks.

  2. “Designing with recalibration in mind” is a lot more expensive at the start.

  3. Smart contracts have limitations and are not as flexible to work with as common programming applications