I hope this governance model has been looked at from many perspectives. What is in place to prevent a core group in governance from ganging up on a provider? One way to have a check on the governance group is to publicly show the details against an accused provider, and also allow the accused to provide details in their defense. Somehow allow the public to approve or veto accusations. I'm not real keen on the FF having veto power although we need some sort of counterbalance but it needs to be decentralized. I would however likely support such a system temporarily but I would add a deadline for a more long term solution.
When Staking is implemented will delagators be subject to slashing if the ftso they are delegated to is slashed. And will there be a "Lock up" of our wflr?
The mechanics of a slashing system is still unclear, should vote power still be involved, it would not be affected or slashed. However, if the staking model allows for stake contributions, the staked contributions could separately be slashed.
I hope delegators will be given adequate notice to remove their WFLR from chilled or blacklisted providers, since there are usually a few days delay (the lock period) during which it is impossible to change one's delegation for an upcoming epoch.
Chilling affects would only be in affect from the following reward epoch. There should be plenty of public discussion to make delegators aware. You should be quite cautious of an impending chill by monitoring who has a proposal against them and the status of the vote.
I have a question.....if I were to just buy 100k Flare tokens and wrap them and then delegate them on bifrost. And do nothing but just let them sit there to earn rewards through Epoch and Flare drops for the remainder of the 33 drops. Will I get get chilled or black listed?
Great video as always Tim!
Always appreciate your support!
Awesome vid!!!
Thank you for watching Oscar (:
I hope this governance model has been looked at from many perspectives. What is in place to prevent a core group in governance from ganging up on a provider? One way to have a check on the governance group is to publicly show the details against an accused provider, and also allow the accused to provide details in their defense. Somehow allow the public to approve or veto accusations. I'm not real keen on the FF having veto power although we need some sort of counterbalance but it needs to be decentralized. I would however likely support such a system temporarily but I would add a deadline for a more long term solution.
When Staking is implemented will delagators be subject to slashing if the ftso they are delegated to is slashed. And will there be a "Lock up" of our wflr?
The mechanics of a slashing system is still unclear, should vote power still be involved, it would not be affected or slashed. However, if the staking model allows for stake contributions, the staked contributions could separately be slashed.
I hope delegators will be given adequate notice to remove their WFLR from chilled or blacklisted providers, since there are usually a few days delay (the lock period) during which it is impossible to change one's delegation for an upcoming epoch.
Chilling affects would only be in affect from the following reward epoch. There should be plenty of public discussion to make delegators aware. You should be quite cautious of an impending chill by monitoring who has a proposal against them and the status of the vote.
I have a question.....if I were to just buy 100k Flare tokens and wrap them and then delegate them on bifrost. And do nothing but just let them sit there to earn rewards through Epoch and Flare drops for the remainder of the 33 drops. Will I get get chilled or black listed?
FTSO Management Group actions apply to data providers only, not delegators.
@@timothyrowley ok...thank you for your response