This proposal is very interesting. That said, I still have a few questions so I can evaluate it properly:
How exactly is TotalStakeWeight defined? Does it include staking durations and/or multipliers? How is stWCT calculated in practice?
How often is the APY updated: per block, daily epoch, weekly, etc.?
How resilient is the model against “gaming”? For instance, could a large actor move stakeweight to manipulate the APY in their favor?
From a UX and comms perspective: how do you plan to explain to users that the APY is dynamic and why it changes?
In principle, I’m inclined to support the move to a power-law function because it improves the counter-cyclical design and competitiveness, but I’d appreciate more clarity on the points above before voting.
The underlying concept behind this proposal is very good: give the best rewards to the more loyal and committed members of the WCT community (the longer staking time, the better); at the same time, what I would like to see is a complementary mechanism to protect the price of WCT, especially when there is a remarkable use case (which is the case of this project); it has happened time and time again that the commitment of a project’s community goes busted by the huge price reduction (through time) of their supporting coin and no yield is high enough to cover your investment against the short-term mercenaries that, unfortunately, abound in this industry. That would be a another huge “first” of WCT team.
I think it is a fair point you raised. Thus my question or rather my suggestion is to time both the use case (roll out of wct pay) and this P4 voting so that the interest remains strong. @A794K0HWCT
how many people staking actually hold 1.25m WCT or greater relative to total number of stakers
What sort of ideal curvature do you want to incentivize around people staking?
From the looks of this you’re going to incentivize whales to split their assets across multiple nodes which incentivizes from a network perspective more nodes, but doesn’t account for Sybil’s well. I don’t think it’s necessary to address the Sybil problem, but it is a tradeoff to be able to detect this where onchain it looks decentralized but the network becomes theoretically more susceptible to detecting hostile takeovers by incentivizing this behavior.
I have been staking all of my rewards since the initial airdrop until today, with everything locked for 104 weeks. I have no intention of selling.
My goal is to support the security and stability of the protocol, especially during this early phase. I am intentionally waiting for the WCT chain release, as I believe WCT will play a key role in securing its own native chain and delivering significantly higher, sustainable rewards.
Even though the price has been declining, my conviction in this project remains strong. From what I see, WCT has:
A solid vision
A healthy and growing ecosystem
Strong fundamentals and long-term utility
Market price does not reflect real value in early stages. I firmly believe that once the chain is launched and adoption increases, WCT will enter a strong bullish phase driven by real usage and network growth.
I’m here for the long term, focused on contributing to the protocol rather than short-term price movements.
I strongly support the P4 New Staking Rewards Formula proposal. The shift to a power-law APY model is a smart move—it boosts competitiveness by raising max APY to ~30%, rewards long-term stakers like me, and ensures sustainability across market cycles without relying on inflation. This will attract more participants and strengthen the WalletConnect network. Great initiative!
I am already HODL-ing 104 weeks - till the end of DEC 2027.
I’m in favor all proposals which rewards HODLers: bonus WCT tokens, bonus APY, … provided it is fair and helps strengthen WCT future growth.
