Just like on DYDX I think that is a bad idea, since it only dilutes staking rewards for the people who bought their OSMO from the market.
I am already against staking from the CP in the first place tbh… but since that is already passed I rather see it done as diversified as possible.
We see this from a risk prospective, LST providers are far from being equal on this front. There seems to be a competition between providers, using misleading comparison to Ethereum’s Lido story. We just want to remind the different communities that are involved in this debate that we don’t need multiple LST providers, one could be more than enough if we take good care to have it decentralized enough. Spreading this effort into multiple providers only makes the endeavor harder to achieve as they all have to be decentralized in the end! This is why we support each LST provider to submit its own proposal and never to mix things together. This way we can keep track of independent allocations and assess their risks as they evolve.
I fail to see why passing this proposal would make it unclear for each allocation.
Since it would be:
Whether it would have been achieved through 1 or multiple proposals doesn’t matter for the end result. The numbers could look exactly the same.
What we believe to be inappropriate with this proposal is the mechanism to reallocate some of the existing voted allocation of one provider into two other providers. The legitimate way to go would have be to create two new proposals for QuickSilver & Persistance and claim a dissolution of half the Stride’s voted allocation. This is what is happening in here and the current format makes it quite unclear, we think the method used in this set of proposals is misleading to the general Cosmos user, hence our vote.
Hence the reason why @JohnnyWyles posted it on the forum in the first place. In the days between the initial post and the first proposal being on chain this would have been valuable feedback.
And on time to actually change how it goes on chain.
You’re absolutely right. We need to improve on our coverage for the Osmosis Forum. Anyway we didn’t mean to sabotage, we knew our negative vote would have no impact on the proposal itself. We just wanted to take a stance and disagree with the method used as it felt below the standards we want for prime level chains. To see the positive, at least it brought us down to this point where we had that conversation and we’ll hopefully make sure this doesn’t happen again in the future.
Noted, this could have been a dissolution, followed by two spending proposals.
In the next few months, I would like to see an actual policy for distributing an allocation of OSMO that supports each liquid staking provider proportionate to their usage and risk basis. This crude allocation mainly aimed to enable a range of providers to enter the market in the meantime.
I strongly disagree that the Lido comparison is misleading! That definitely wasn’t my intention here. While researching this, I found that Lido was more decentralized than I had initially thought and closer to Stride in terms of model. Whether that is sufficient is still up for debate. Initially, I approached this thinking that Stride was already a step up from Lido, but I found more similarities than I expected.
I think competition is vital in the space, not just for a range of opinions on voting power but also for the evolution of LST token mechanics.
Liquid Staking on Ethereum is vastly different from liquid staking in the Cosmos and potentially unexplored compared to here, where every chain will likely have at least one LST in time.
I think this is totally true.
Adoption comes with use-cases, and use-cases with adoption.
One can’t go without the other, it is more like a real flywheel.
By stepping in and generating more TVL the other LST-providers get a shot at getting traction as well, diversifying the landscape and fostering competition and innovation.
Having some sort of automated protocol in place would be cool. Not sure how to decide upon the risk of a specific protocol though.