Between 2023-Jan-13 and 14 the staking rewards jumped from approx. 16% to approx. 20%. The Polkadot docs mention the share split in 2020, but no mention of this change. Anyone know what happened?
It appears this may be the change in the “inflation model” related to the introduction of Parachains?
However, Parachains landed sometime ago. Was this really that update - just delayed?
Bill(W3F) comments in Matrix:
that was the era when the runtime was upgraded to v9340
The v9340 highlights and the v9340 Release Notes appear to be silent about a fairly material shift in the rewards program.
It does appear this is a change in the inflation model related to Parachains:
07:16PM - 23 Mar 22 UTC
08:04AM - 08 Nov 22 UTC
The ideal staking rate in the inflation model of Polkadot is still hardcoded to
… be 75% [here](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/blob/master/runtime/polkadot/src/lib.rs#L523). On Kusama there is already a more advanced mechanism that scales with the number of parachains and it is probably time to update Polkadot to that model.
08:50AM - 11 Aug 22 UTC
We should probably als
… o close #3011 as we move to Polkadot, as the current approach is kind of a guess, without taking into account the number of slots that where actually auctioned.
Not exactly sure if this makes sense, as it was added mixed with the guilts PR (https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/pull/2587), which polkadot does not have.
Also related: https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/issues/8327
I am still a bit surprised – the change you mentioned should actually reduce the inflation by a margin, because it now takes the parachains into account. A bump is rather unexpected. How are you calculating the 16 and 20%?
Reading the % staked values off the model charts I thought 16% and 20% were roughly expected from that change - I had expected the reward changes to land with the Parachains, so that was the source of the doubt I expressed.
Also some otherwise “weird” behavior now makes sense, or at least fits some rational behavior - it appears people were searching for this additional return earlier. Specifically, starting around 2022-10-19 to 2022-11-11, it appears “the market” looked for this return but (obviously) didn’t find it
Referring to the data posted above:
era_return = era_reward/era_staked
When annualized the return is approx.:
pa_return = ((1+era_return)^365)-1
I’m thinking of making a treasury proposal for a bounty to work out if people should be compensated from treasury for this ‘loss’…
Say a bounty of 15% of the losses identified - that should also establish an on-going incentive.
Thoughts on how likely the fellowship/council are to support something like that?
Right now the Treasury seems a ‘beggar-thy-neighbor’ affair so there’d have to be a fairly clear show of support to justify the effort.