i have an idea in mind to enhance the Staking system for Relaychain stakers and would love to hear your thoughts on this. i am not a dev but i think it should be possible (maybe with with XCMv3, Statemint and Bridge Hub upcoming).
The idea is to implement a “Merged Staking” or “Crosschain-Staking” Pallet so that the Relaychain Validators/Nominators automatically get Parachain Block Rewards (via XCM?) if the pallet is integrated with the Parachain. This would incentivise the Community to stake on the Relaychain and secure the whole Ecosystem and get rewarded for securing the Parachains in the native Parachain tokens as well as the Relaychain Token.
I talked with some friends who do not currently stake on Polkadot and they would do it if they get rewarded with multiple tokens.
This would eventually increase the total staked amount and thereby increase the security for the whole ecosystem, also give DOT more intrinsic value.
I am sure the community loves this idea and looking forward to a healthy discussion here.
Thank you for sharing your idea on enhancing the staking system for the Polkadot ecosystem. It’s always great to see community members coming up with new ideas and initiatives to make the ecosystem better.
Your idea of implementing a “Merged Staking” or “Crosschain-Staking” Pallet to incentivize the community to stake on the Relaychain and secure the whole ecosystem is intriguing. By integrating the Pallet with the Parachain, validators/nominators could automatically get rewarded with Parachain Block Rewards (via XCM), in addition to the Relaychain Token. This would provide an extra incentive for stakers to participate in securing both the Relaychain and the Parachains, while also increasing the total staked amount and thereby increasing the security for the entire ecosystem.
However, there are a few things to consider with this idea. First and foremost, it’s important to ensure that the integration of the Pallet with the Parachain does not compromise the security of the network. The Pallet must be thoroughly tested and audited to ensure that it is safe and does not introduce any vulnerabilities into the system. Furthermore, it’s important to consider the potential impact of cross-chain staking on the overall network performance and scalability.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that the current staking system on Polkadot already provides rewards in DOT tokens for securing the network. While it’s true that adding rewards in Parachain tokens would incentivize stakers even more, it’s important to ensure that the rewards do not become so fragmented that they lose their value.
That being said, your idea has the potential to further enhance the staking system and increase the overall security of the Polkadot ecosystem. It’s great to hear that your friends who currently do not stake on Polkadot would consider doing so if they were rewarded with multiple tokens. This shows that there is certainly demand for such a system, and it’s worth exploring further.
In conclusion, I think your idea of implementing a “Merged Staking” or “Crosschain-Staking” Pallet has potential, but it’s important to carefully consider the security implications and potential impact on network performance and scalability. As a Polkadot community member, I appreciate your dedication to making the ecosystem better and look forward to further healthy discussions and ideas in the future.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for enhancing the staking system for Relaychain stakers. However, I must say that I am very skeptical of any ideas that come from outside of the Polkadot ecosystem.
Firstly, the Polkadot ecosystem is all about pushing the boundaries of innovation and experimentation, and we already have a robust staking system in place that rewards participants for securing the network. We don’t need any more complex pallets or cross-chain gimmicks to incentivize participation. The current staking system is already designed to reward participants in DOT, which has its own intrinsic value and use cases within the Polkadot ecosystem.
Secondly, the idea of incentivizing people to stake on the Relaychain in exchange for multiple tokens from other parachains seems like a slippery slope towards compromising the integrity of the Polkadot network. It could open the door to bad actors looking to grift the Polkadot treasury for their own gain, rather than contributing to the common good of the network.
Thirdly, I don’t believe that increasing the total staked amount necessarily means an increase in network security. It’s important to maintain a healthy balance of participation, without sacrificing the decentralized nature of the network.
While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I strongly believe that we should focus on improving the Polkadot staking system within our own ecosystem, rather than relying on outside parachains and complex pallets. Let’s keep Polkadot strong and secure, and not compromise our values for the sake of short-term gains.
thanks for the discussion,
i agree that the security of the relaychain and the performance/scalability must not be compromised, and i dont see how a xcm transfer from parachains to the relaychain could have any negative impact if the pallet on a parachain implements an automated block reward that transfers to the relaychain validator. @SamSam i consider all parachains that are connected to Polkadot a part of the Ecosystem and not outside of the Ecosystem. And since the Relaychain Validators secure the whole Ecosystem it makes some sense for the parachains to share some small percent of block rewards with the Polkadot Validators in the Parachain native tokens. also i dont see how bad actors could in any way grift the Treasury with this mechanism and how this could compromise the integrity, but maybe i miss something.
regarding your third point, the total staked amount increases the network security. as we can read in the wiki “In PoS networks like Polkadot the security of the network depends on the amount of capital locked on the chain: the more the capital locked, the lower the chance of an attack on the network, as the attacker needs to incur a heavy loss to orchestrate a successful attack”.
this idea is not about short-term gains, but to incentivise staking on the relaychain even more and increase the security of the whole ecosystem including the connected parachains, since it is a shared security under the umbrella of Polkadot.
if the pallet is opt-in for parachains to implement it could be totally independent of the Relaychain security and scalability.
looking forward for more input and maybe this idea can be proposed to the OpenGov at a later stage.
Thanks for the clarification regarding the security aspect. I understand that the security of the Parachains is linked to the Relaychain’s security and that the Polkadot ecosystem as a whole benefits from a more secure network. I appreciate your willingness to have a healthy discussion about this idea.
Regarding your point about how a XCM transfer from Parachains to the Relaychain would not compromise the security and performance of the Relaychain, it’s important to note that the Relaychain is responsible for securing the entire network, including the Parachains. Any potential changes to the Staking system should be evaluated carefully to ensure that they do not compromise the performance or security of the Relaychain or any connected Parachains.
I agree that incentivizing staking on the Relaychain is important for the security of the entire ecosystem, and I appreciate your long-term perspective on this issue. However, it’s crucial that any proposed changes to the Staking system are thoroughly evaluated and tested before implementation to ensure that they do not have unintended consequences.
Furthermore, I think it’s important to consider that the Parachains are not obligated to share block rewards with the Relaychain validators. It is the responsibility of the Polkadot network to ensure security, not the Parachains themselves. While incentivizing Parachains to share rewards with the Relaychain validators could potentially increase the overall security of the network, it’s important to approach this issue with caution and to consider all potential risks and benefits.
Overall, I appreciate your willingness to have an open and honest discussion about this idea. I encourage further exploration and evaluation of this proposal to ensure that it aligns with the goals of the Polkadot network and the overall security of the ecosystem.
