vARMOR will be our single-sided staking pool and the base of our new Armor DAO.
Originally, we we did not plan on launching it with staking rewards as not to further increase rewards being introduced into circulation.
vArmor Tokenholders (the DAO) can vote on proposals. For example a proposal to split protocol profits (Armor income from current and future products) between the Armor treasury and vArmor holders.
As discussions have started about burning a considerable amount of Armor tokens to decrease max supply the Armor team is no longer too worried about increasing circulating a bit through more rewards, and we believe that rewarding vARMOR stakers could be a big boon for the token and number of voters governance has.
So let’s discuss this here and once there is consensus about the possible outcomes, we can create a DAO vote!
I think it might be good to set up some initial staking rewards. With the high price of gas we need to provide incentives for people to pay the fee’s incurred for staking, especially if we want to incentivize smaller holders to get involved in the governance process.
Ya, absolutely. Since the numbers haven’t been figured out yet and we don’t want more circulating immediately, maybe promising a retroactive airdrop would be the way to go?
A “Round Table” NFT drop would be a wonderful on-brand way to promote governance involvement. Just would have to figure out timing? Announcement with only users getting a drop if staked by date. Or it could be a reward claim like Nexus mutual does with The Mutant Chronicles, where you can claim the NFT if a certain condition is met. Where we could set “collect if staked for x months”?
Tokenburn is definitely a good idea. Otherwise price of Armor will keep falling with the increasing supply. We have bought at above 1USD It has been almost a year, Armor down more than 80% whereas my other worst crypto holding is at 3x.
So we’re currently finishing up design here but thought at the moment is to have staking on vARMOR work so that there’s a multiplier as people leave it in there and don’t claim, then, when people unstake or claim, the multiplier disappears. This will mean that there’s no commitment to staking, but big incentive to not unstake or claim and release into the open market, and ideally gets rid of some of the negative tokenomics releasing rewards could have in the system.
We’ve still gotta code this, so to start we could either do retroactive drops or just send tokens to the contract every few days or week to keep people rewarded for staking.
Ok so the current plan here is to begin with a simple disbursement mechanism that will release 500k-1M ARMOR tokens per week to all users staked in vARMOR. Stakes will have a 1 week withdrawal. This will continue for 3 months while we design a longer term strategy.
The reason for a straightforward plan to begin with is to immediately get peopled staked and delegated.
Any thoughts on these amounts or a different strategy to go with?
In the long term, I’d love to see further utility for holding Armor and vArmor than “just” governance rights. Dont have any concrete suggestions for that now (except big categories like “fee discounts for Armor holders” or “Profit share in some way”).
Let’s say it’s agreed upon vArmor stakers to get a share of the project’s profits.
In terms of the ghastly government regulation, will this describe vArmor as a security according to the Howey Test?
If so, should there be a mechanism that would keep the whole vArmor staking situation decentralized enough, not tо fall in the situation Ripple is in?
P.S.
I realize this sort of thing might be a little early… The Ripple case hasn’t set its precedent quite yet, and clear global regulations are still in Hell’s pipeline. But I strongly suspect Armor will have to be ready for a frontal conflict of interests with any government.
Never too early to be thinking about legal. Actually just got off a phone call regarding this stuff.
Short answer is yes, we 100% want to be decentralized as quickly as possible and, at the point vARMOR staking rewards are up, the DAO will have control of most of the protocol and be very resistant to regulation.
Long answer is no one knows exactly what the laws are going to be and what’s going to be deemed a security. We feel once the DAO is up we will be “adequately decentralized” and will not be a security regardless of whether stakers share in profits. We will undoubtedly immediately be protected against the protocol being stopped because users will have control, but whether or not that will legally be enough to not be a security–which is important for accessibility or lack thereof of governance to users–is yet to be seen.
Sharing in protocol profits specifically is something I personally would only like to see happen once things are really running smoothly and there are less and less arguments against us being centralized as, if we were deemed to be centralized, that would be a clear indicator of being a security. But it’s something I definitely see for the future and we are preparing for.
I want to give my opinion about single staking!
I think thats would not make sense to reward single staking without a lock / vesting period…
We can do something like 3 /6 months 1 year
So I agree in general and we’re working on something now for locking, but the big thing is we need people to have voting tokens and delegate them for the DAO to function correctly and must make it worth it to users with gas cost
I would like to see a longer lock-up as well, with connected increasing rewards and voting power.
Like CRV - veCRV (which can’t be traded and can get locked up until max 4 years for max rewards, boost and voting power.
Same with KP3R and many others.
Yeah the gas cost is definitely a issue !
It will take to long or difficult to make it happen in other chain ? I have no idea just asking if you haver ever thinking about that !
Because honestly eth fees is very frustrating and i think will take some time to fix that ! And now a lot of projects not only armor are suffering it !
