Since the stOSMO pool would serve as the price oracle, the pool would need to be sufficiently deep to deter attempts to manipulate the price through aggressive buying or selling.
In order to prevent manipulation, Stride contributors deployed the Redemption Rate Contract, which Mars is using to strengthen its stATOM and stOSMO oracles.
But ultimately, the best thing to deter manipulation is to have deep liquidity in the pool, which is the intention of this proposal.
In essence the ratio of OSMO you get versus stOSMO should ever go up, right? Then where in this picture is the price important? It is the job of the redemption rate to act as price oracle, not at how it is traded, right?
Is it then not more of the question where we should even want to have a pool? Because it might cause depegs which are totally undesired?
Can you please share the results of Strideās OSMO validator delegations program if it is completed. If it is not, I would like to request that this proposal be delayed till it is?
Also, @Stride is there any update on multisig members?
Would Stride consider increasing the number of validators it delegates OSMO to since it is community pool OSMO that would be staked, and in the interest of meeting its dual mandate?
In reviewing the average vaildator scores (Host Chain Delegation Program Average Validator Scores - Google Sheets) I see that there are 5 validators that had an average score of 5.4 or higher. The lowest average score of a validator that received a delegation from Stride was 5.4.
Was @LeonoorsCryptoman asked to serve as a multisig member? Was @Govmos asked? If not, why? If both are willing and able, I would request that they replace two individuals that are currently named.
Both are validators that did not receive OSMO delegations from Stride, are members of the the recently created Taker Fee subDAO, and in the lower half of OSMO validators. (Govmos didnāt receive a ATOM delegation either and LeonoorCryptoMan is also a Stride governor).
Up to now thereās been a technical limitation on the number of validators Stride can delegate to, but this limitation is being removed in an upcoming update.
In anticipation of this, iām already working on a proposal to revamp the delegation process so that it can be run again with a much larger validator set ^.^
Do you have an idea of when this upgrade will happen (e.g. before the end of Oct)?
If the proposal passes, will the multisig be holding off on liquid staking the Community Pool OSMO till this upgrade occurs, doing it in phases (some before the upgrade some after the upgrade), or doing it all before the upgrade?
How many more validators slots will be made available in the upgrade (e.g. 2, 6, 10?)
Is the plan to fill all available slots based on the current scores?
Iām not sure when the upgrade will occur, but the plan is to begin collecting applications to re-run the process before the upgrade occurs, so that when the upgrade does happen weāll have completed or will be close to completing the next round of the process, so that delegations to the larger set can be made quickly.
Not sure how many more validators exactly yet either, but early estimates have it at most of the active set. This is still TBD. Waiting to hear back from Stride engineers.
The delegations from this proposal would be made before the upgrade, and then just reallocated once the next iteration of this process is complete.
This is equivalent to proposal being rejected and a new proposal being submitted with a revised amount (which is good). Letās see how people vote regarding the reduction.
So I noticed FlipSide is winding down their Osmosis validator.
Since they received a delegation from Stride, what is Strides plan when the validator is shut down on 10/16? Will the delegations be going to Govmos or LeonoorCryotoman? Based on the published scores and methodology, one of them would have received Strides delegations if FlipSide wasnāt in the running.
I think weāll need another governance proposal for this on Stride, but iām in favor of shifting the delegations meant for flipside to the validator that has the next highest score. I will put something up on the forum in the next few days (iām currently out of town for a wedding)
Note: per the methodology in the proposal, in the event of a tie between 2 validators for inclusion, the lower-ranked validator of the two would get the delegations.
To add clarity here, this would mean @LeonoorsCryptoman would get added to the set at the bottom rank, flipside would be removed, and all other validators below flipside would get moved up one rank (and their delegation percentage would be adjusted upwards accordingly)
I am still a fan of reducing the size of this prop though, just to limit risks for Osmosis as a protocol. If things turn out great, we can also size up, whereas sizing down is nearly impossible.
By allowing users to utilize it as collateral, resembling using a valuable item to secure a loan, especially on platforms like Mars , Membrane, and others.
