Floor V2 will introduce locking as a vital part of the Floor wars mechanic allowing for users to apply their voting power against the new collection and sweep wars. The underlying system works on epochs; a measurement of time that equates to one week. Tokens will be able to be locked for one of a number of predefined epoch amounts, relative to the max lock time of 12 weeks.
Vote power from locking does not decay, the longer the lock the more vote power. When the lock expires, the user’s vote power remains however casting a new vote will bump the lock to 2 weeks while retaining the same original vote power - this prevents users voting maliciously and immediately exiting.
If tokens are unstaked before the full duration, then a penalty will be applied with some of the staked tokens burnt. This penalty decreases as the lock duration shrinks.
This vote will allow us to gauge the community’s view on the Floor V2 locking mechanism; a max lock of 12 weeks with no vote power decay and vote power lasting beyond expiry, or no vote locking. No lock time will allow for quicker access of staked tokens while maintaining voting power, with the downside of this being that users can buy tokens to stake for just one or two important votes and then dump them back into a pool, meaning that there is less requirement for ongoing commitment and engagement with the protocol.
This vote, if passed, will define the maximum lock time as 12 epochs (weeks), with the other lock times being logically determined underneath it. This change is immutable and once defined cannot be changed.
The penalty amount for early exit will be determined in a separate vote once the max lock time has been decided.
Vote Options for max lock time:
No locking mechanism
12 weeks
Abstain
This proposal will go to the Floor and Snapshot 24 hours after posting, following discussion.
Wondering what folks think about additional incentives to lockers aside from the ability of having sweep power?
From my view, thinking more about FLOOR token holders rather than as a collections, those that lock are directly sacrificing to give non-lockers exit liquidity given they can’t take part themselves. So in reality one would think that the folks locking are only those that care about sending buys to NFT collections rather than those that care about FLOOR price.
This is great to get NFT collections involved but it still forgets about FLOOR holders and requires that there is enough demand to buy floor for it’s sweep power long term.
However, both of these parties are important to the DAO and why I think some sort of protocol emissions could help get more of the pure FLOOR token holders locking too. Turn off rebases as is and instead only give them to lockers and thus those willing to lock get more % ownership of the protocol overtime.
This at least would help me see the benefit of locking aside from avoidance of governance attaccs.
This proposal will go to the Floor and Snapshot 24 hours after posting, following discussion
This is too fast a turnaround for any kind of meaningful conversation. While I know this was posted on the discord months ago with little to no constructive feedback (and what feedback there was has been incorporated), a 24 hour notice for discussion before moving to a vote isn’t reasonable IMO and I would be against any other proposal that pushed the same timeframes.
Moving forward I would like to encourage any community forum post to give 7 days as a minimum before moving to a snapshot vote to allow for more casual users a chance to see the post, collect their thoughts, and contribute to the discussion.
It does make sense that FLOOR lockers should be rewarded by the DAO over those not locking FLOOR. There’s a indirect incentive to lock in that directing ETH to certain collections with potential for greater upside could result in a better performing treasury, and more directly if there’s an active vote market but that is yet to be seen.
I do think that locking incentives shouldn’t end here, so any suggestions that help to align FLOOR lockers with DAO performance in future upgrades is definitely worth discussing.
Hi all, just making a note that this proposal will remain on the forums for 7 DAYS AFTER it was posted before moving to Snapshot. This is to allow more time for discussion!
Given those numbers I would suggest that it should either be one of the following Option 1
Yes, lock
No, no locks
Abstain
or, Option 2, a runoff vote (preference order of voting )
4 weeks
12 weeks
26 weeks
The original vote already for this has already given us a winner for Option 1, so I would move that we look at Option 2 as the way to proceed with this vote.
