Improving staking UX with staking pools

Feedback
1

Hi everyone,

I have been a fan and user of NXM for a while now and I like to propose an idea that might be beneficial.

One of the biggest pain points of Nexus Mutual is that staking into each project requires each user to spend gas on every transaction and then the added time consumed for vetting each project one wishes to stake on.

A possible solution is implementing staking pools formed by a committee that can create multiple staking templates that back a group of projects depending on the risk and possible APY earned.

This can enable users to just simply join the pool that satisfies their risk appetite while still allowing others that wish to continue to stake manually. A user might even consider splitting their funds into multiple pools to diversify their risk.

As a user, I can simply go to the staking pool dashboard and see the APY rates and the projects behind them. Currently, If I was looking to participate in NXM I have to spend too much time and energy when I rather trust a panel of experts. Everyone that makes it this far already understands the risk and at this point is about making the process smoother for backers of the Nexus Mutual.

2 Likes
2

I think offering a simple way for people to stake without necessarily knowing much about projects would increase the amount of stakers by quite a bit.

I see too approaches

  • Index staking where your tokens are staked proportionally against the top 25 protocols measured by demand.
  • Curated staking where influencers/experts can create a basket of projects that you stake on.

Both of these would probably be quite difficult to implement technically.

3

Thanks for the feedback, thought I’d mention a few things along this front:

  • you can stake or unstake against multiple contracts in one tx, which helps somewhat.

  • totally agree that there is a large opportunity if we can more efficiently match up experts with capital.

  • ArmorFi has recently launched with what is essentially a delegated staking vault.

  • We’re planning to enable a more generalised delegated staking approach on the move to Staking 3.0 (timeline TBD)

4

Yeah, I think the Armor delegated staking is a big deal.

I can imagine that they might even go the route of tranching different risk level vaults: high risk/high yield, medium risk/medium yield, etc.

There’s a lot they’re building out.

Is there a possibility that NXM team will do overlapping work that Armor is already building? And does that potentially change the NXM roadmap?

To me, ARMOR is essentially a distributor for NXM, and the two together make one entity.

It’s like NXM built a car factory and got off the ground by having customers directly buy/sell to the factory. ARMOR built the dealer network.

As long as ARMOR can’t “squeeze” NXM revenues, it’s a win-win for everyone.

5

that very good for the improvement UX
bandung,best regards