As we are aware to aquire incentives from marketplace we will be required to perform a lock from our SFT.
I thought I would throw this out there as a group discussion that all locked SFT become unlocked on a certain date once a year and we have to relock and the cycles begins again for another 365 day. I’m sure there will be pros and cons but instead of me listing them I though it would be better to allow the people to throw their opinion at this.
3 Likes
What would be the benefits of that?
I assume there would be two cons:
- People who want to collect for several years without touching their wallets are affected.
- An automatic lockout and fee distribution of all addresses together would result in an overload of the network (possibly millions of tx in one block).
I see one pro:
“ghost wallets” who are still locked in and collect fees but are lost by their holders (lost keys) get filtered out. This would result in more fees for the rest of the active holders who are holding their keys.
2 Likes
You still aquire insentives daily, weekly or monthly but this would allow ghost accounts to be freed from recieving divs, dead SFX
2 Likes
It’s not a bad a idea to have a function to stop incentives going to dead accounts. I’d be a bit annoyed though if for whatever reason it wasn’t possible to ‘relock’ on the designated date and I missed out on a few days worth - which could be thousands of $.
Maybe giving a week or so notice would work, so you could check a box to automatically relock on that date.
I think as Oli said the strain on the network would be the main problem with it if it was all on one day.
2 Likes
Interesting topic. The concept for locking for such a long period would suggest a benefit at the end of the term. I can’t think of one except Oliver’s idea of identify ghost wallet or ghost incentives that could have been used for active wallets. But a year is a long time. There are other ways to verify active wallets. Eg. If I add more sft to increase my locked balance, that would indicate it’s active. Or unlock a portion (can we do that?). I just don’t see the benefit of the set lock timeframe without and additional benefit.
And what would be the benefit for the Safex ecosystem is another question.
2 Likes
Yep so that’s another good point. So from any date locked maybe instead of a certain time of yr. Next would be if that is possible
2 Likes
One benefit to doing an periodic automatic unlocking would be to encourage the flow of SFX from SFT holders, instead of just forgetting about them. It could even be beneficial to charge a “fee” when the automatic unlock kicks in. Like if you had 1000 SFX the fee would be 10% and you would only receive 900 in the unlocking because you didn’t unlock it yourself.
An easy way to avoid the impact of unlocking all at once is to not unlock all at once. Start the automatic unlocking countdown from the time the SFT are locked in, so they won’t all happen at one time.
1 Like
If this feature was added: IMO it would be a keep alive transaction, versus a unlocking system wide; this would help missing any opportunities. You can have a keep alive window say within the next 1000 blocks you must send a keep alive message to continue to harness incentive. Otherwise the system will consider those tokens unlocked and no longer distribute.
That would prevent stale sink of SFX
Cons to this is: it becomes resource intensive; the chain would need to check every block who needs to keep alive
From my view, only a system wide interval would be in favor of resources. (a specific block # where all tokens must be kept alive)
Furthermore: important to note that withdrawal of incentives are ideally with the withdraw message rather than automatic distributions and rather than the system doing the distributions.
6 Likes
That’s a great idea.
1 Like
Just a slightly alternative idea, it has been suggested that the user will have to manually “claim” their incentives, which is a nice idea to reduce traffic on the blockchain (i.e. not all incentives are paid at once).
It strikes me that this idea could be extended to solve ghost accounts.
If a user does not claim their incentives within a time period, then that users wallet becomes “unlocked”.
5 Likes
Rather than a single time each year for all wallets, what if it was to occur on the anniversary of the Token Lock for each wallet… could be based on the block number x you locked at + 262800 blocks (1 year of blocks, based on 2 minute average blocktime).
So the Autounlock block y = x + 262800
The keep alive Message could kick in at y - 1000
Or would all of that being independent for each wallet place too much load on the network?
3 Likes
Yes, this is what I was referring to: in this case the system would need to track for every single lockin the anniversary: this is the resource intensiveness we are looking to avoid.
4 Likes
Wow, so we are talking about Proof of Life. Hadn’t considered that before.
6 Likes
Pardon my ignorance but how will ghost wallets lock their tokens in if they can’t or don’t access their wallets? Not sure if that makes sense or am I not on the right track
The theory is about wallets which become ghost wallets after lock in. Example: owner locks in on January 2020. Owner loses key on April 2020. Wallet is locked in and collecting fees forever.
Anyways, this theoretical issue will possibly only take a few percent of SFX supply out of the system in a course of several years. So it may be worked on when the issue is relevant and there is a big network, high tx volume on the market later in the game.
(Only after some years it adds up: say 1% of SFT is in ghost wallets, after 10y 10% of the collected SFX fees is taken out of the system. On the other hand there is still an inflow of new SFX due to the emission curve over the next 20 years.)
2 Likes
Main motivation besides keeping ghost wallets hording sfx is to keep sfx in the flow since it’s a currency and not a crypto gold…
So is it possible instead of having to have a keep alive message to keep every wallet alive that was sending SFX within the last year…
Everyone having to send messages once in a while while their account can be proven alive without message is leaving a lot of dust within the blockchain over time
2 Likes
More we discuss this the more I agree that we should have some ghost wallet keep alive requirements. To keep the SFX from just vacuuming into a void.
3 Likes
What about the idea to keep it “alive” in an “external” way - you do some message/transaction to the wallet, but do not have to handle the private key of the collecting wallet itself. This way, people can keep their keys secure in storage (keys in a vault, multisig, etc.).
Also: people who re-activate their wallets later, obviously don’t get robbed of their fees either. If you collect for 1 year until re-activation deadline and re-activate 1 month later, you still get paid out for the first year.
This is always the case, a keep alive can’t be anything other than a message/transaction; and any message/transaction can always be signed offline.
1 Like
Your keep alive is the claiming of the safex cash. Seems pretty obvious to me.
If someone does not claim their cash for say 16 months (1 1/3 years) then the cash from 16 months ago is returned to the network. This means that a person can only have 16 months of unclaimed safex cash.
Then it seems unreasonable to take from the person any claimed safex cash. The person maybe in hospital then in care for an expended period (say after a car crash) and cannot access their funds for easily a couple of years. To then take what they already claimed is theft. To miss out on the unclaimed safex cash is just part of the process and not theft. This can hold true for even longer periods. What about political prisoners (or otherwise) held for a few years. It would be a double whammy to then take their safex cash they claimed prior.
So return unclaimed safex cash to the network for redistribution but we will just have to live with claimed safex cash in ghost accounts. To do otherwise is theft and against a more just system than the banks stealing.
4 Likes