The Future of Polkadot Staking

[kianenigma]

@coco

Focus only on 2 points: Commission for pool operators, less good. Many operators already benefit indirectly when they choose themselves as validators.

I totally agree, but I am not compelled that the feature should not even be an option. We’ve developed it such that there is a single global maximum commission set by governance. Moreover, even if this is non-zero, I am pretty sure the average commission will revolve around 0, as most pools will leave it be.

@xlc

The plan of moving staking feature into a common good parachain and how it plays with governance & other features. Do we want a governance chain and a staking chain or a single parachain chain for both staking & governance & some other features?

I am not decided yet, but I am leaning toward a “DOT chain” where the main utilities for DOT token live:

• Staking
• Governance
• Auctions etc.

I think this is the most reasonable degree of composability and asynchrony to deal with.

@xlc

Put staking derivatives protocols into design consideration. For example, fixed number of nominator cap makes liquid staking protocol implementation very complicated for no obvious gain. We could also design the nomination pools in such way that could be used as a building block for staking derivatives protocols.

I mentioned Allow for a dynamic number of nominators by kianenigma · Pull Request #10340 · paritytech/substrate · GitHub in another reply about nomination cap. Other than that, is there anything specific about pools that you have in mind? I think the pools can already be used in Liquid Staking protocols. Instead of setting up direct nomination, Acala can setup a pool on the relay chain and control that via the parachain, a contract etc. You can then allow other users to subscribe to the pool, charge your commission on the relay chain etc.