The current staking rewards model is vulnerable to wallet fragmentation. Users can split small amounts across multiple wallets and extract rewards disproportionate to their actual economic contribution. This dilutes incentives for large, long-term stakers who provide most of the network’s economic security and alignment.
Objectives
Prioritize large and committed stakers
Make multi-wallet farming economically unattractive
Preserve permissionless access while fixing incentive misalignment
Proposed Changes
Additional multi for big players
We already have multi for voting but 1k+ 10k+ 100k+ should get additional % at airdrop or have airdiops just for them.
Non-Linear Reward Curve
Replace linear rewards with stake-weighted rewards that favor larger positions and reduce returns for small fragmented stakes.
Soft Sybil Deterrence
Apply diminishing rewards to multiple small stakes with identical or highly correlated behavior, without identity requirements.
Reward Pool Segmentation
Separate rewards for core (large, long-term) stakers and open participation, preventing dilution by farming strategies.
Expected Impact
Multi-wallet strategies become inefficient
Large stakers receive rewards aligned with risk and commitment
Improved network stability and governance integrity
More accurate participation metrics
For first airdrops it was valid, but We cant afford to try to attract new small investors and prioritize them over peaple that would actually bring money and value to the project.
I’m hoping for open discussion, and mayby a voting in this topic.
In agreement but with an adjustment or balance. Prioritize large and small committed stakers(longer duration “104 weeks”).
There are large stakers with shorter lock duration and small stakers with longer duration,for example : Mr X staked 10,000 WCT for 12 weeks and Mr Z staked 520 WCT for 104 weeks in your proposed scenario with the current staking method Mr Z will get non to zero rewards for his longer commitment,while after rewards distribution Mr X can unstake and get his locked tokens in 12 weeks and get higher rewards for shorter commitment duration.
If you have the liquidity to Sybil WCT boosted rewards,you won’t bother cause you didn’t participate in voting and you will not stake for a long duration to boost your rewards so if like a waste of time and put a gap in your liquidity flow which can be used in other places
Yes but we already have rewards based on time staked, but we should put more attention to amount staked. By locking 10k even for 12 weeks You are making more difference than somebody putting away 540 for 2yrs. I belive point of entry should be also higher, above 6 months of staking just to qualify. And about sybil, I’m just gonna prove it next airdrop.
Then, if another staked 10k for 2 years, what then? Will the reward be the same?I bought 450 WCT at 1.1587 per one and staked for 2 years—this is my commitment~~,~~. The price has dropped 92.81 percent from the buying price. The point I’m getting to is: if I weren’t in it for the long run, I would have chosen a shorter duration.
It should be tiered~~,~~:
Tier 1: 104 weeks—allocated tokens will now be distributed according to your stake amount.
The following tiers should follow the same way, etc.
restake reward, you should be around 1k by now, and if You decided to invest 80$ more You would bring You’re avg. Entry price to 0.5. Token is totally oversold so its good moment to buy big amounts to stake and encourage others. This will make demand and push price higher, which will make it possible to get us to the leve You came in.
Because right now we have to stop bleeding. Team is focusing on payments thats good, but token itself is crashing and only thing that it can create is lack of trust for the whole project. Imagine people reaction if for eg BNB crashed this year 95%, it would affect people trust to binance itself.
As long as everyone is been rewarded for their commitment even if prices drops, trust won’t be affected cause if you break it down 70% of all stakers are in the range of 100wct - 1000wct, your proposed scenario affects at least 50% of all stakers even they increase their stake amount
500 WCT with a stake duration of 104 weeks have more stake weight per token,active participation in proposals and voting is a multiplier on rewards compared to a 10k WCT with a stake duration of 12weeks with no voting or active participation or contribution
point of even qualifying should be higher, around 6 months (24 weeks)
I agree that stake duration is important but if You compare staking 100 WCT and 10k for 104 weeks, the reward should be more beneficial for somebody who staked 10k, and should have better % award, because it affects the chain more. Think about it chain gets more benefit from 100 stakers with 100 WCT in stake, or 10 stakers who staked 10k?
If we want to make payments in WCT it should be worth at least one ramen miso soup
100 stakers stacking 100 WCT with a 104 weeks duration is better than 10 stakers staking 10k with a 24 weeks.the chance of the 10 stakers unstaking g is 90% higher than the 100 stakers unstaking,the reason been that the 100 stakers aren’t expecting any rewards and for the long run which show Thier indirect beliefs and commitment to wallet connect future development and growth and the chances of the 100 stakers increasing their stake amount is higher the 10 stakers.
current 100 wct stake price is 8$, I dont why You assume that big stakers will choose the shortest amount of time? I was talking about 104 weeks for both. Thats the whole point of the idea, to get big stakerst to stake at maximum duration for maximazing the profits. Baseline of our disagreement is that You don’t understand that You dont get the whole point of idea.
Lets put it in egzample way: for time staked:
6mo: you get 1% value
12mo: you get 2%
24mo: you get 4%
but for amout eg:
1000 none
1k-10k: 3%
10k-100k: 4%
100k<: 5%
the from amount can be affected by time staked
If someone staking big do it 6mo continously You have point 3: Time-Weighted Rewards
Longer continuous staking earns higher multipliers. Frequent unstaking resets reward weight.
Here we go, trying to twist your own words.I never made any assumptions, I’m only saying to prioritise both small and large stakers unlike you saying only the large stakers to be prioritised,Then I gave you scenarios.go back and start reading from the top and this time take you time tying all the convos together.it really shows you weren’t following the conversation,if you were you wouldn’t have have put the word ‘assume’ New design for staker rewards - #5 by Paridos
You gave me scenario, and if You will read I hgave You scenario 100 users with 100 wct 104 weeks and 10 users with 10k for 104 weeks (I made a mistake that i didnt write it clearly). First we talked about one person and I was tryng to show You a bigger picture. And with new APY design If people staking more coins will unstake, if You stake for more time You’ll get higher apy. And even with random number I gave, person staking 6mo comparing to person staking for 24 month will only get 1% more if I put time into calculations I could make it the same for 24 and small staker and 6 mo bigger staker, but when the duration will be the same, bigger staker should get more award. If somebody will stake 6mo, and unstake then after some time stake again hes rewards will be cut. Idk how to make it to You clearly, if You look above Youre situation You will see that its a good idea, plus i was thinking about multi for restaking airdrops.
And even if You look at 100k staked for 6 months and 10k stake fot 24mo, 100k has more impact and with good menagement You can convince its a good idea that people who stake 100k should do it for longer peroid of time
