Change in stake rewards rate: 2023-Jan-13 and 14

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?

The data:

era block era_date era_timestamp total_issuance era_staked era_reward era_remainder staked_pct era_return pa_return
955 13785630 2023-01-13 15:36:18.000Z 1271486839.99384 573044318.155648 243755.624294332 104305.686592826 0.450688359588861 0.04% 0.167922917318027
956 13800022 2023-01-14 15:36:18.000Z 1271699083.56033 572342422.127065 289895.211408026 58236.9003696131 0.450061205143515 0.05% 0.203011628023186
1 Like

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?

Update 1
Bill(W3F) comments in Matrix:

that was the era when the runtime was upgraded to v9340

Update 2
The v9340 highlights and the v9340 Release Notes appear to be silent about a fairly material shift in the rewards program.

Update 3
It does appear this is a change in the inflation model related to Parachains:

1 Like

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 :frowning:

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.

1 Like