Team Proposal: xx network economic adjustments

Hi!

This is the place to discuss the xx network economic adjustments proposed by the team.

You can find the post and proposal here:
https://xx.network/archive/economic-adjustments/

Please keep conversation to this thread to keep it tractable

-xx network team

6 Likes

Hi,

in the introduction it says “flat 18% commission”. Later on page 5 it says “flat maximum commission of 18%”

Which one is correct?

It is flat. I will update.

1 Like

So to be clear don’t we bring the nodes without TM in a vulnerable position?
Or do I miss something?
190 slots to go without TM and profitable for validators with TM.

Do I miss something

Relative to nodes with TM I think they will be more vulnerable to not making it into a set but that was always going to be the case i think…you do bring up a good question though…
Im not so sure these fixes were meant to “help” non team backed nodes.
These fixes were more meant to make sure team backed nodes were being helped.
I think @benger would be able to give a better explanation ? hopefully?

My view is more to keep an easy system without too much rules and conditions or bypass who can cause future bugs or flaws for at the end a small part of users. In 10 years may be not a lot of initial node runner still there and replaced by another node runners. TM for me it’s like a start boost against big whales for keep our slots some months but in my head this TM will be lost if we can’t found our own nominators.

So they are a lot of points but for resume :

  • increase to 18% for TM is a nice move especially for low own stake but I think it can be better to be a maximal percentage for receive TM.
    Validator lose their TM if increase the percentage to higher value but can set a lower value if want attract more nominators by example. Smaller own stake will put a higher fee and people with more stake will decrease a little their fee for attract nominators.
    If validator keep this higher percentage on the long run they will finally lost their slots so not have the choice to decrease over time. In the future you never to have touch that again it’s a good boost for small own stake.

  • 205k max TM cap is good actually not need more but yes need probably to be increased when unfreeze happen

  • I’m not for bypass the 28 days periods because add too much issues but may be not understand very well. If we can create a second account how you can freeze transfer on this particular account because not respect the 28 days unbound period or let this account transfer only coin from/to TM account ?
    It’s usable one single time or we can bypass each time the 28 days unbound period with this trick ?
    If it’s a bypass it’s not really fair for other so everyone should play within the same rules no ?
    These change are planned for end February/early March so everyone have the about 28 days unbound time for remove a part of their own stake right now for nominate. Like that unlock an amount of coins available when we can nominate people

  • Nominate our node and help other it’s a nice idea. Validators can take better choice than some actual nominators and we can help to boost good validators and rejecting bad performing nodes without give them any coins.

It’s not my final decision but I’m here for discuss and may be not understand all very well. I’m here for discuss with everyone :slight_smile:

Does that really mean those who want to take TM cannot set commission rate below or above 18%?

That my take as well.

Pretty sure you can do what you desire as far as what % you want to put. Just keep in mind the risks regarding team MP.

You can set below, just not above

Ok, thanks. Because above it was said “flat” which I took to mean non-variable across the board regardless of both one’s preference and amount at stake.

No, it is the maximum rate qualifying validators can set without losing the benefit of TM.

It’s not a bypass, everyone’s coins (among those who qualify for TM) are locked in the same address.
28 day unbound can be eliminated because no one can move coins elsewhere in any case (due to a lock completely unrelated to staking or nominating (and related to Beta/Proto/Canary programs)).


It seems to me what will happen is overall commission rates will drop at least slightly, which is good because it will increase competition.

It’s easy to see that with loose slot management commissions have been going up which - from the network stakeholder view - represents unnecessary handouts.

The proposal looks good and very helpful and will solve 80% of main problems (the last 20% will be coin mobility) for time being.

In the proposal stake simulations starts at 0 xx; it would have been visually less confusing if x axis started at 14,000 xx because below that validation is not an option. Although it’s perfectly fine to nominate with less than 14,000 xx, you can’t get validator commission for that investment so there isn’t much value in having it in there.

It is a very good proposal from the team, very well thought out and elaborated, it will probably solve most of the current problems. In theory it seems the solution, hopefully in practice it will be too. :+1:

Timing-related comment: as some of those coins sold last November are supposed to be distributed this week, it would be less disruptive if that got done before the first batch of fixes gets applied.

That would make it easier to plan and assess the situation.

In general, I agree, but there are doubts. While the token is not being traded, you can try. In addition, you need to distribute bonuses 50% from last sale, they can also affect the whole picture.

I agree. Is 18% the maximum or fixed for everyone? if this is the maximum where is the formula?

No, it is the maximum rate qualifying validators can set without losing the benefit of TM.

Temporary if you set 18% later or definitive ?

It’s not a bypass, everyone’s coins (among those who qualify for TM) are locked in the same address.
28 day unbound can be eliminated because no one can move coins elsewhere in any case (due to a lock completely unrelated to staking or nominating (and related to Beta/Proto/Canary programs)).

Yes but seem not a temporary measure but seem to stay even after listing when all is unlocked no ?

Sound like a well thought out plan. I like that node operators get fair compensation and will also be able to stake their coins on other nodes. This way we can find the most profitable nodes to stake on or help out nodes to take part in the active validatie set.

Sounds like the best of both worlds that solves all mentioned problems. Big thumbs up! :+1:

When it comes to choosing the commission rate, it’s exactly the same behavior as it was prior to this change.

I don’t know what they plan to do after coins are unlocked.

I expect that the final version (which would need to come before listing) will not allow bypass. Originally ProtoNet had one controller and multiple stash addresses so I think we’ll return to that approach and normal policies will be in place.

You can ask in Discord or maybe someone from the Team will respond here.

Yes it’s ok if let everyone “free”.

It’s why I’m not so sure about bypassing 28d delay. The team want to set that end February/early March who let us the time to everyone to unbound stake. If exchange happen by example during March the team will modify the code and may be add issue bug or flaws for just some weeks when we can do that other way by keeping the same code for everyone without bypass.