CLOUD-1: Should Sanctum implement CLOUD staking and active staking rewards?

[AGCab]

Totally yes. I believe this will pump $CLOUD

[mfusa]

I agree with everything but I don’t agree with The lock up period, I think 20 days would be ideal

[Alexandreaso]

The active staking mechanism with rewards seems to be a good mechanism to add value to the Token and encourage the community to actively participate in governance, but the chosen model, which seems to me to be a prediction market linked to staking, may scare away some good-faith participants because when exercising the right to vote, one is exposed to losses if their honest opinion is not the winning one. Another factor to be observed is the 60-day lock-up period, which, as it is above market practice, may not be viewed favorably by the community.

[U3K]

・I think it would be good to be able to choose the lock period from immediate, 30 days, or 60 days. This is because many people feel rebellious when others decide for them. If you can make some settings, you will be able to accept it at your own risk. It’s a psychological thing.

• ASR rewards are good every day.

If the person receives it every day, he or she will visit the sanctum site frequently. This is because they can no longer take their eyes off the sanctum and are actively trying to learn more.

[fplee]

If the person receives it every day, he or she will visit the sanctum site frequently. This is because they can no longer take their eyes off the sanctum and are actively trying to learn more.

I agree that having more frequent rewards is better, but we don’t know the total number of proposals and so we don’t know how much to distribute per vote. Maybe someone can think of something I haven’t yet.

[skicia]

I think the deliberation period and voting period should swap. 3 days for deliberation and one week for voting, because:

1. It’s not like we cannot discuss/deliberate about it during the voting period.
2. Many people are busy in real life being a web2 fiat farmer (), we don’t even get to be online so often. 3 days is too short, one week is more reasonable for the most of us.
3. I can already see that some people will forget to vote despite participation in the deliberation period…“Ah right, I should cast my vote now for the proposal that I saw 5 days ago.” - said no one probably ever

[Tiggles]

But giving the 1 week for deliberation is there so that if changes need to be made to the proposal there is enough time to do so and give enough people time to voice what they think of the proposal. This is exactly what is happening in this proposal. It went from 50Mil to 30Mil rewards and from 60 days lock to 30 days because enough people voiced their concern.

Deliberation and having these conversations with each other actually will have a bigger impact on shaping the direction of Sanctum.

Perhaps the team can look into making a mailing list to send out notifications to people’s emails to remind them to vote.

[butagorira]

I think ARS is great.
Wouldn’t it be possible to let participants choose the lockup period?
For example, no limit, one week, one month, three months, six months, one year.
Being able to choose for yourself is one of the attractions, isn’t it?

[rose]

[quote=“Deiro, post:16, topic:1228”]
My vote is yes. Sanctum should implement CLOUD staking and ASR.

[Azrangar]

I’m not a fan of the 30 days. When I saw 60 days at the first, it was a major turn off. Why can’t we have a 2 weeks lock period?

The rewards are fine.

Will there be partner rewards?
Deeply bothered by not having a link between the product and the token. Strictly governance tokens tend not to do well.

Rewards should be paid monthly. The payment of JUP ASR takes way to long for example. Monthly payments are far more meaningful.

[xpto]

@fplee

ASR

I agree with the proposal.

[cho]

@eggpanned

• People gave feedback that the vesting duration was too long and the ASR amount was too large. Reduced ASR to 30M and linear vesting to 30 days. Explained linear vesting better.
• Clarified that ASR would not apply for CLOUD-0 and CLOUD-1, since staking does not exist yet.
• Clarified more details on ASR distribution.
• Many people were confused about what will happen if this proposal passes – wrote a new section, What will happen if the proposal passes?

Positive Aspects

• Reducing the vesting duration and ASR amount shows that you’re actively listening to community feedback. This can foster trust and engagement within the community, as it demonstrates that their input is valued and can influence outcomes.

• Education: By explaining linear vesting better, you’re aiding in the education of your community, which is crucial for informed participation. Similarly, clarifying that ASR does not apply to CLOUD-0 and CLOUD-1 due to the absence of staking reduces potential confusion and misinformation.

• Transparency: The addition of a section detailing what happens if the proposal passes directly addresses a common confusion point. This proactive approach can make the voting process more transparent, helping members visualize the implications of their votes.

**Potential C&C (Concerns or Considerations):

• Balance: While reducing the ASR to 30M might appease some who felt it was too high, others might view this as too drastic a reduction, potentially affecting the attractiveness of staking. It’s important to gauge if this new figure strikes the right balance for all stakeholders.

• Vesting Period: Shortening the vesting to 30 days might be seen as too aggressive by some, who might argue for a longer period to ensure stability and commitment from participants. However, if the community largely supports this change, it could enhance liquidity and immediate utility of tokens for users.

• Ongoing Communication: The community might expect continued dialogue and updates, especially if there are further iterations or if other parts of the proposal need adjusting. Keeping the lines of communication open is crucial to manage expectations and maintain community support.

• Adoption and Understanding: Even with these clarifications, there might still be segments of the community who need further explanation or might not fully understand the implications. Continuous education efforts might be necessary.

[kmikz]

I really like the idea of ​​being an asr, but the period is too long, it should be like Kamino.

[Raven1r44]

I am in heavy favor of the shortened lock up time. 30 days is just long enough to sit through if necessary while simultaneously making me feel like, well fuck I don’t need it in 30 days, I need it now so I’ll just leave it staked. Futarchy really doesn’t see that complicated to me. It’s just a different set of parameters and values to vote by. I have faith regardless tho!

[x8track]

the sanctum team is always thinking!
i like the idea of sCLOUD
maybe consider “meeting in the middle” and allowing users to choose their staking time.
users could choose to stake their cloud 30, 60, 90, 180 days (?)
there would be a deduction (“penalty” is a harsh word lol) of ____% if unstaked early.
longer staking = increased rewards
LFG

[fairysquid]

To vote you buy or sell the proposal or some random shiz i’m still very confused by it

[fairysquid]

When Does Cloud1 go live?

[nucky]

30M CLOUD for 6 months is too low… please revert back to 50M. We want to build a huge DAO, and we need the incentives to be good to attract more people. 30 day unstaking period is fine.

[Luk4]

Check this out, quite a tangible explanation:

Ash (@ahboyash) on X

[skicia]

Well I agree with that to a certain extent that that’s also an option (which what we are following now), but I was thinking, also using this cloud-1 as example, instead of changing the contents of the proposal, we could also just disagree with it to let it fail, and make a new proposal like revision 1.1 with said changes (60m to 30m etc) right ? Im not sure which is easier to implement and manage tho.