Proposal #107 Distributing shield rewards proportionally amongst stakers

I propose the shield mining rewards should be proportionally distributed amongst the stakers as opposed to being first come first serve.

I have already created the proposal, it is in draft stage, #107.

Would love to hear everyone’s opinion.


I agree with this proposal. It feels unfair that the fatest shooters get all the rewards while the others still have to bear the risk without the reward.

I agree and you can add that no being able to get reward while unstacking have to be changed.
The risk taken while you’re unstacking for 90 days is the same.

I think that is up to the project to choose to who send the reward. I think that its not unfair to exclude unstacking members if the project wants to boost the cover capacity.
But if the project wants to incentive long term staking, then why not include them.

This is not a reward from Nexus, but from blockchain projects. They can choose their terms.

1 Like

It’s unfair because for 90 days there are costs for my stacking : it’s covering the risk for 90 days, there are opportunity costs.

My stacking is not free money.

As far as I’m concerned this problem is solved : from now I won’t stack anything.
Apparently there is no stacking problem so I’ll let others taking the risk for me.

To clarify how it currently works:

  • Every round (starting Monday) stakers can optionally claim rewards as per the reward rate. X tokens for NXM staked

  • If a staker doesn’t claim in a round, then they forfeit the rewards in that round.

  • Rewards continue until the total rewards provided by the project team run-out.

This effectively means that only the last round is first come first served but all other rounds can be claimed at any point during the round. This method was chosen for technical reasons because other implementations would have required changes to Nexus’ core contracts and would have significantly delayed implementation.

So except for the last round of each campaign, rewards are proportional.

Our teams view is that once we implement a revised staking approach (which streams rewards) then we can also update the shield mining contracts to also stream rewards. We think streaming is the best implementation as it’s proportional in all cases and means users can claim rewards when it makes sense from a gas perspective. We only didn’t do it because of the technical barriers.

1 Like

In general, I don’t think NXM should be in the business of telling protocols how to allocate their shielded staking rewards. That’s a loyalty decision that each protocol team should make on their own.

However, we can give them historical data and anecdotal feedback about what NXM members prefer.

I’m more concerned with Proposal #108. I hate the “claim it or lose it” model. It feels like SNX and, to the point of the proposer, it can get pricey. I’d love to understand why that is necessary as oppose to a longer window (particularly if the member continues to stake against the contract in a ‘rollover’ fashion’)

and where is #108 in the forum anyway? :wink:

@jer979 We don’t like it either, we had to make a trade-off due to technical limitations:

The current staking implementation didn’t have the right data/structure to enable streaming rewards. So we had two choices:

  1. Rebuild core Nexus staking contracts, knowing that we would likely need to rebuild again later to implement staking 3.0, and delay shield mining release by at least several months.
  2. Release much sooner by building an entirely separate contract that doesn’t touch core Nexus contracts but with a non-ideal reward distribution.

We went with option 2, with the goal of adjusting it when we release staking 3.0. When we get there this will mean reward streaming on both NXM rewards and Shield Mining.

I’m heavily on the pragmatic end of the spectrum and prefer more releases that allow the community/us to iterate on after receiving feedback.

The key with this approach is the Nexus team listening to feedback and adjusting. I can assure you we’ve got the message load and clear on this one :grin:


I get it. You made the right call on this one

1 Like