Staking for governance vs. Staking in Lp

We should change the word ‘staking’ (for voting/governance etc) to something different… come on badger’s what do you think? SOV Locking, SOV Badgering, SOV Burrowing or something better/more creative. This might help remove the confusion of what staking is normally referred to throughout defi which is basically providing liquidity to lp pools.

Actually I think of it the other way around: referring to “providing liquidity to AMM pools” as “staking” is the misnomer.

The term “staking” originally comes from proof of stake protocols, usually where there are funds at risk of “slashing” penalties if the protocol is not properly followed. That seems like an accurate enough term to use for SOV holders who lock their SOV in the Bitocracy contract, since if they do not govern well then SOV could lose value, and if they try to cash out early then they are subject to early unstaking penalties.

On the other hand, LPs are not subject to any kind of penalties at all; their only risk (assuming a bug-free protocol) is exposure to divergence loss aka “impermanent loss”. That doesn’t sound like “staking” to me. It sounds like market making.


It seems like there are good points here. I was attracted to SOVRYN for free thinking vs derivative bank centric thinking in exchanges. That said - they are very clear on the reward/value propositions offered. If the LP contribution is rewarded for market making and the Bitocracy pool of committed SOV is called Staking - all good. If I were to place $1,000 fiat equivalent in a 2 year Staking position vs Market Making - what are the terms of those contracts? I think @light makes a good argument about relative slashing penalties vs immediate rewards. My main concern, however is clarity which would be better served by by clear definitions and incentive/performance info. Also - current fee structures do not appear compelling so the SOV proposal @light mentioned in another post would also be important. Thanks for letting a new guy comment

1 Like