The key point is that staking duration does not directly enter the P4 APY formula.
The formula in P4 calculates a base protocol APY, based only on the total stakeweight of the system. When using the formula as written, the ~15% result makes sense as this base APY at current stakeweight.
The higher values shown in the table (around ~30%) appear to represent an effective APY for users staking at long or maximum duration, because duration increases the individual stakeweight via a multiplier (as defined in P3).
In simple terms:
P4 defines how much the protocol distributes overall
P3 defines how rewards are split between users
Longer lockups don’t change the base APY, but they increase the user’s share of it
That explains why the raw formula output and the table values differ.
How does decay behave during unstaking?
During unstaking, the token amount remains locked, but the stakeweight gradually decays over time.
This means:
Rewards decrease smoothly, not abruptly
There is no “cliff” where rewards suddenly drop to zero
The global APY remains stable, since only the user’s stakeweight is changing
In summary:
The P4 formula defines a base APY at the protocol level
Staking duration affects rewards indirectly through stakeweight (from P3)
Unstaking applies a gradual decay to stakeweight, not to the base APY
The new formula, APY = 45,000 \cdot \text{TotalStakeWeight}^{-0.5} , aims to increase APY during low staking periods (e.g., ~80% at 1.25M stakeweight) while ensuring sustainability through faster decay at higher stakeweights.
This is a strong proposal that moves staking in the right direction. By addressing the points above, the proposal can become even more robust, transparent, and likely to achieve its goals of a competitive, sustainable, and well-aligned staking program.
The new staking formula is a solid step toward ecosystem maturity. However, to ensure maximum adoption, we must prioritize UI/UX transparency. Since the (WCT * lock_duration) / 209 formula might be complex for casual users, the dashboard should provide a clear ‘What-If’ simulator to help users visualize their potential ROI and the ‘decay’ process before they commit. If we can make the math intuitive for the average holder, this will be a massive win for WCT’s decentralization.
I recommend adding a visual chart that clearly illustrates how APY dynamically changes as total stakeweight increases. A simple APY-vs-stakeweight curve would help stakers intuitively understand the non-linear behavior of the new power-law formula and set realistic expectations around rewards under different participation levels.
In addition, the proposal should explicitly define extreme scenarios. Specifically, there should be a minimum APY baseline (floor) such that, even under very high total stakeweight, staking rewards do not fall below a predefined threshold. This would improve predictability, reduce downside uncertainty for long-term stakers, and strengthen confidence in the sustainability of the staking program.
I agree with moving toward this approach as it supports long-term sustainability of WCT without overly penalizing newer stakers.
That said, I do have a concern around early participation dynamics. With a power-law curve, how do we ensure that early whales don’t disproportionately capture rewards before total stake grows?
Have we considered adding guardrails such as a per-address reward cap, APY ceiling, or phased rollout to balance incentives and maintain fairness for smaller (“shrimp”) stakers as well?
Would love to hear thoughts on potential mitigations here.
