We can’t easily split the rate based on when someone has staked, that requires more development work. However, it should be quite easy to change the period for everyone from 90 days to something lower.
Technical issues aside I’m against having a different rate based on when people have staked. It doesn’t feel fair to me and punishes the early adopters who are staking.
On the basis that we’re lowering the 90 days for everyone, there are two main aspects to consider:
1. Is the increased risk worth it?
I don’t believe a lower lock period (using the current staking model) will work from a risk perspective long term. It opens up potential for long range attacks. However, there is a reasonable argument it’s ok on a shorter term basis in anticipation of moving to a new staking model. It does require that mutual members are relatively stringent on adding new protocols for coverage.
eg don’t add random new anon project that hasn’t add audits as soon as it gets released.
2. Do we think the net outcome on staking will be an increase?
There will be some staking outflow from people taking their newly released stakes, and there will be staking inflow from members who are now willing to stake. Hard to tell the net impact here, it would be great to hear comments on both sides of this.
If you’re not staking, would you stake more?
If you are staking, would you stop staking immediately?