It may have a negative impact on the short term price, but in the long term with a lower maximum supply of SPS, it will have a beneficial impact

Good point, but one thing to note is that third party providers will never be able to unstake already staked SPS, they can only offer liquid rewards for new earned SPS.

That's true, I will include this in the proposal that the default is opt out

Again, would you prefer bots to sell 100% over 4 weeks or 95% now, with 5% going to burn? If bots will sell regardless, so why not give them the freedom to sell when they want for a small penalty? If SPS

Staking does not equal locking necessarily, I firmly believe that is a false equivalency. For example I was informed Cardano is apparently not locked for staking, and there are various DeFi protocols out

Thanks for the feedback, this was initially considered but I chose burn because it's simpler the DAO already has a lot of SPS However, once the DAO runs out of SPS incentives for necessities like LP rewards,

Could you further elaborate on how the system could be gamed? The number one priority is to ensure there are no exploits from this proposal

Personally, I believe 5% is a rather large deterrent already and would personally not use this feature unless something drastic is happening in the market. The point of this proposal is to enhance the

In any market those who react fast will always have the advantage, which is why bots are so popular in trading. However, that is not something we want to discourage either (since it's against the spirit

Thanks for your support, it was originally 4% but I updated to 5% from the feedback. I am not opposed to a secondary proposal to increase fees should this pass (or not pass)

Thank you for your feedback, it seems the community generally wants a larger penalty. I am personally in the boat that a 5% fee is adequate at this stage and is a valid penalty to disincentivize people

This is something I did personally consider originally, but for the sake of technical simplicity I decided to do a simple system. Due to the company's limited resources I did not want to over complicate

Thank you for your feedback, it seems the community generally wants a larger penalty. I am personally in the boat that a 5% fee is adequate at this stage and is a valid penalty to disincentivize people

Yes correct it's a percentage of the amount being instantly withdrawn

Matt has confirmed that it's possible to "power down" the vote if it gets instant withdrawn, so this issue is no longer valid.

I personally think 5% is reasonable, but we'll see what the community thinks, generally it seems more people are interested in a higher penalty though. In terms of burning it into DEC, it would only make

Thanks for the feedback, that seems to be the general consensus that it's a bit low. I will keep this in mind and we can always create another proposal to update the fee if needed if this one pass

Hi, at this stage the default is opt in, so all users by default allow early unstake unless they manually lock their SPS. Perhaps a warning should pop up when this implementation goes live and asks the

Thanks for posting the feedback! If more people agree with this opt out by default and choose to opt in I will update the proposal. I can't imagine that would be a difficult technical implementation.

Easiest option is to simply "power down" your voted SPS each time you instant withdraw.