FAQ
Last updated
Was this helpful?
Last updated
Was this helpful?
The REWARD_INTERVAL is configurable when deploying a new reward source. When there’s a new reward, the staking system updates everyone’s reward schedules based on earning power. The rewards are distributed over a period of time, the REWARD_DURATION.
Yes, stakers can create multiple staking positions. Each staking position can have its own delegate.
Yes, see – for example –
Yes! Staking is compatible with standard governance tokens and Governor contracts out-of-the-box.
The staking system delegates the voting power of staked governance tokens. It uses the same methods that regular tokenholders do, so no changes to the underlying system are needed.
The underlying governance token handles snapshotting. Staker puts the governance tokens for each delegate into a separate account, called a “surrogate”. Then, it calls delegate() on the underlying governance token to distribute voting power. This way, the underlying governance system does not have to change.
The current version of Staker lets tokenholders withdraw instantly. Withdrawal delays create an incentive for dangerous LSTs, which can blow up if there’s a duration mismatch.
Yes! The LST can delegate its voting power directly, like a normal governance token. If the holder doesn't delegate the votes, the LST uses the delegation strategy instead. That way, LST voting power is always active in governance.
Liquidity risk is minimal, because unstaking is instant. If there is a price difference between TOKEN and stTOKEN, arbitrageurs can arbitrage it away.
Yes, that's one of the primary motivations. LST holders can have it all. They can participate in governance, earn rewards for doing so, and use their position as collateral. The LST is a rebasing token, but it's easy to wrap it into a non-rebasing LST.
The underlying governance does. e.g. Arbitrum governance would pick the delegation strategy for `stARB`. If Arbitrum governance does not approve one, Tally Protocol's governance picks a default.
Delegation strategies have no special powers that might present a danger. Token holders are free to change delegation strategies at any time. Poorly implemented delegation strategies do not pose a feedback loop danger. In the worst case, users withdraw their tokens or delegate them by hand.