[MIP-8] Reward token holders based on ranking system

Title: Reward token holders based on ranking system
Author(s): pedrom_023
Related Discussions: [MIP-8] Ranking system for token holders
Submission Date: 17/11/2022

Overview:
Create a user ranking system that can be used to reward the well token holders that have well tokens staked in the safety module.

Motivation:

  • Increase the utility of the well token
  • Reward the most dedicated token holders and at the same time
  • Increase the amount of well tokens in the safety module.

Description:
Currently there are 3 types of rewards when we supply an asset to moonwell:

  • Supply APY
  • Well rewards
  • GLMR rewards

I think it makes sense for the GLMR rewards calculation to take in account the amount of well token the user is staking in well safety module.

I propose 4 different rankings:

Base Ranking (0 - 100000 well staked in safety module):

GLMR rewards = Current GLMR rewards*0.5

Beginner Ranking (1000 00 – 300000 well staked in safety module):

GLMR rewards = Current GLMR rewards*0.8

Intermediary Ranking (300000 - 600000 well staked in safety module):

GLMR rewards = Current GLMR rewards*1.1

Advanced Ranking (more than 600000 well staked in safety module)

GLMR rewards = Current GLMR rewards*1.3

There’s also the possibility instead of having these fixed tiers, have this ranking based on a percentage. I don’t agree with that because of two reasons:

  • If we go by percentage the users with more well tokens can spread their well tokens between multiple wallets and monopolize the top tiers.
  • This would make the implementation more complex

I think we should go with fixed tiers that can be easily adjusted in the future based on how this feature is being used.

In terms of UI I would suggest two changes:

  • One new button placed on the below menu where the user could click and then see the all the possible tiers and which is the tier he belongs
  • When he clicks on rewards, next to GLMR rewards we could add the tier that the user belongs so he knows he’s getting those GLMR rewards based on his ranking



    Conclusion:
    I think this proposal will benefit the project, increasing the token utility and adding a little bit of “gamification” to the system and by that attract more users.

Hi Pedro
I agree ur point to the percentage tiers. But still, there could be better way to simplify those criteria numbers. What do u think about using portion of circulating $WELL as a criteria? For now, its 2 bil tokens circulating, but in the future x20 amount will be circulating. So we rather need portions than fixed number.
Because the value of the tier should reflect protocol’s growth. I suggest we use criterias that constantly reflects projects value.

Hi Parkhodu,

I understand what you are saying but having these dynamic tiers might be confusing since the users might be moving constantly between tiers.

In my opinion having a fixed amount is easier to understand. Maybe we can have a system that every 6 months the tiers are updated based on the token circulation.

What I suggest then is to have like a timer on the ranking table saying to the user that in x amount of time the tiers will be updated.

Best regards,
Pedro

1 Like

Hi Pedro
user ranking system 相當有趣
我想生效的話,短期可以激勵大家持有well token (像是我會去買到600000)
但轉念一想,對資本不多的使用者不太友好
(只能得到一半的獎勵,或是需要承受很大部位的well token 波動)

順帶一題對鯨魚來說是個利多,存款不變的情況下價值能累積更快。
若用百分比的話,可能協議治理會被佔領 :rofl:

Hi jgTral,

I don’t think this proposal is going to generally benefit whales. Since we have 3 types of rewards, and we are considering only one (GLMR rewards) that will consider the ranking, the benefits are not that massive.

As stated before, the motivation of this proposal is not only to reward the most dedicated token holders, but also to increase utility of the token and also have more well token in the safety module to safeguard the protocol.

Also with the ranking we can increase the participation of the users in the governance of the protocol, since you need to have 400000 well tokens to create a proposal, and I strongly believe with the ranking system we will have more user above that threshold.

Best regards,
Pedro Gonçalves

HI pedro_m023
抱歉是我誤會了 :flushed:
如您所述

we are considering only one (GLMR rewards)

這樣well token 不會增發給鯨魚,對協議治理並沒有產生風險 :innocent:


目前30W well token ≒ $1400
我參照了之前bkase 提供的
spreadsheet on Nomad Collateral Reduction Impact
(我不知道如何產生新的資料 :flushed:)

  • total deposit > $14000 的,可能會積極參與提案 ( 91個地址,加總$27157319)
  • 對於total deposit < $14000 的,well token 波動風險稍大了 (473個地址,加總$626200)

我的看法是,可能削弱資產不足的用戶存款;但總的來說,這提案能激勵大家持有一定數量的well token :+1:

hello pedro,
I think ur idea is great in that $WELL token can give extra incentive to users.
do u think we need extra UI for this? or is that good enough showing numbers like down below?

Hi,

I think at least we need an additional UI to show to the users what are the ranking tiers and what are the tiers that they belong.

Regarding the UI you suggested, I like it, I would only change that part you suggested from “WELL HOLD Booster” to “GLMR Ranking booster”, since my suggestion is to give GLMR rewards instead of WELL rewards.

1 Like

Hey @majin ,

How can we progress regarding the proposal?

  • Promote this in the telegram & discord channels to engage the community?
  • Can someone from the team also give feedback and help with the proposed code changes?
  • Should I advance to a snapshot proposal?

I feel that I have my hands tight and cannot advance more since it seems only the proposals from people close to the moonwell core team have what it takes to be completed.

Thanks!

Hey @pedro_m023 ,

To answer your questions specifically:

  • Promote this in the telegram & discord channels to engage the community?

Please feel free to champion your proposal and engage with the community on Discord/Telegram. I would personally love to see more discourse taking place in the Discord Governance channels.

  • Should I advance to a snapshot proposal?

You are free to submit your proposal to the Snapshot portal for a signal vote. This action would also trigger auto-tweets/discord messages, hopefully bringing this proposal to the attention of others in the community who could assist you in further refinement.

  • Can someone from the team also give feedback and help with the proposed code changes?

A couple of things here. First and foremost, as governance is decentralized, community members aren’t reliant upon any contributing team to implement these sorts of updates to the protocol. You have the ability to find a developer to assist and request a grant as part of your proposal to finance this work.

This leads me to my second point, which is that what you are currently proposing will be quite the engineering lift AFAIK. These proposed updates will require not only changes to the comptroller (and thorough security review/auditing before it can safely replace the current comptroller), but also front-end/UI updates.

I would recommend that you give @octavius’ recent reply to @parkhodu.eth a read. He gives an example of a “WELL Vault” that could be built and goes into detail on why, in his opinion, it’s usually a better idea to build ontop of the core protocol, as opposed to directly changing it. Here’s an excerpt:

The idea demonstrates the sorts of things that can be built independently of the core protocol to achieve things in a more frictionless way. IMO the point of being an open protocol is more or less that it does one core thing and does it well, and allows for people to build things that integrate directly with it. That same vault concept can definitely be expanded on to do all sorts of neat and novel things and this is basically how things like yield optimizers work under the hood - they don’t make tweaks to the core protocol but instead build abstractions on top of existing protocols which is a lot easier to ultimately do IMO.

Hi @majin ,

Thanks for the feedback, all clear.

Let me give my 2 cents here, from what I’ve seen from the last weeks since I created the proposal, I found out it’s still really difficult to move forward with an idea that’s not fitting the “roadmap” of the protocol, either it’s because it’s still difficult to engage the community to push this forward or because the team that built the protocol (that as lot of knowledge of the protocol how the protocol works) doesn’t seem too interested in helping the community members on moving forward with the proposals.

I found really disappointing the suggestion of trying to find a developer that can implement what I’m proposing, since I would expect someone of the dev team to help implementing the proposals (at least in the beginning). It seems that the team is able to help in some proposals, but in others not. Example: [MIP-10] Re-balancing of WELL Token Liquidity Incentives

I don’t know any developer with knowledge about the programming language of moonwell and I found it very strange that someone with no knowledge of the protocol to work on top of it, without no guidance from the core team.

Based on these factors, I will stop my contribution on this forum.

I will keep supporting this protocol and maybe will be back when I see more clear direction regarding how proposals from the community are handled.

Thanks,

Hey Pedro,

I’m sorry to see you go. I hope you won’t remain a stranger to the Governance Forum for long.
I also want to compliment you on coming up with this idea and bringing it to the community. We need more people like yourself that have the desire to see the protocol evolve and take a more hands-on role. To respond to some of the above:

I didn’t mean to offend by mentioning that you’re able to enlist developers to assist and finance this work through governance grants. I just wanted to make you aware of all the tools at your disposal. The idea is that people are able to utilize the available WELL grants to pay for devs to build novel and useful tooling/infra/functionality, without the need of any existing contributing team members. Even if you don’t know any developers, you could always put “help wanted” posts up in our Discord or other locations and shouldn’t have much issue finding someone to assist. It’s a bear market after all and there should be plenty of engineers with smart contract experience looking for some work.

I hate that you’ve found this process difficult. Moonwell is a young protocol and has recently decentralized through governance, and as such there are surely some kinks to work out and things that can be streamlined. I’ve tried to make you aware of what paths are available and how you can take this idea to the next phase. As mentioned above, a good next step would be to bring this proposal to a Snapshot signal vote. This would not only be a useful polling exercise, but would increase the visibility of your forum post and help keep the ball rolling.

The truth is that it can take a lot of individual effort to see an idea all the way to implementation. You may have to champion the idea across all mediums (forum, discord, even TG), engage with the community to flesh out the finer details, enlist dev assistance, get out the vote, etc. This is especially true with an idea like yours which would require a lot of overhead. The comparison of your idea to reward speed proposals like MIP-9/MIP-10 isn’t the best, as these proposals are not only vital to the health of the Moonwell ecosystem but also are much simpler in practice (they basically just set reward speeds and transfer tokens).

If you change your mind and want to continue contributing to Moonwell through the governance process, I’ll be here to assist! Thanks again for your idea and for bringing some of your critiques to the attention of the community.

1 Like

Hi @pedro_m023 just to be clear I see my role as a contributor being to help facilitate development of new features - we’re not exactly sitting around doing nothing. In the past few months we’ve released the gov portal, a proposal generator UI in the gov portal, a proposal verification testing suite, moonwell.js, and a new market deployer (among other things) and generally we’re focusing on building other tooling to enable community members to safely make updates to the protocol and keep it functional.

I also think there might have been a bit of miscommunication - I don’t believe anyone said that you’d receive no help from us at Lunar Labs, but @majin is correct in that the whole purpose of the grants program is to help folks with ideas actually see them brought to reality and expand the contributor pool to the protocol.

The nice thing about Moonwell is that it’s just solidity code and it’s all open source. Unfortunately it can be difficult to build these features, especially if trying to change the multi-contract system that makes up the current protocol (lots of testing and security reviews and requires intimate knowledge of how the protocol works) and you may be able to execute on this same idea through a different avenue (like a vault and maybe a minimal code change to the comptroller) as I suggested elsewhere.

I think the desire here is more that if you want to see this built that you champion the idea and become a contributor to the protocol - that means doing things like corralling resources and realizing your vision for the feature. As @majin said, he’s simply making you aware of the tools that exist for you to help yourself. We at lunar labs are also a pretty small team, so while we’d love to work on everything all the time, we have to triage things and sometimes that means focusing on more fundamental tooling (like making sure governance proposals don’t blow up the protocol) that empowers community members to help themselves realize their ideas safely.

I hope you’ll reconsider seeing this idea through to completion, but I also understand that it’s a lot of work to undertake! At minimum you’ve laid the foundation for someone else to potentially come along and pick up the torch, so thank you for the contributions you’ve made thus far!

3 Likes