After reviewing the discussions, we have decided to withdraw the proposed reduction of the unstaking period from the upcoming protocol proposal.
Unstaking was only one of the proposed changes; what about the rest?
3 Likes
After reviewing the discussions, we have decided to withdraw the proposed reduction of the unstaking period from the upcoming protocol proposal.
Actually this is an excellent compromise imo, thank you for listening to the community’s feedback. The main concern for many seems to be the unstaking period, so this is a great move.
So this means we still get the other benefits like improved network resilience and faster key switching for bakers (better UX).
- Improved network resilience: More frequent rights computations and faster deactivation of inactive large bakers (defined as holding >1% of the stake) improve network security.
- Smoother baking and staking operations: Bakers and stakers benefit from shorter delays for key updates, rewards, and unstaking.
Nice!
4 Likes
Hi @Val,
The entire “4-hour cycle” feature has been withdrawn.
While the reduction of the unstaking period was a key point, the feedback received indicated that the other elements also require more discussion and time for consideration.
6 Likes
I agree mostly. But if we want everybody interested in staking and Tezos in general then we should try to have a solution for everybody.
So, why not have dynamic staking instead of having to choose one or the other.
For example: stakers could choose to stake for an amount of cycles based on their input and the longer they choose to stake the more they earn. While shorter stake times like a few cycles would earn just like a delegator or even less.
That way we could also completely remove the delegation mechanism as it would be redundant.
