Big thanks to my colleagues at Chorus One for their contributions to this post, especially Umberto Natale for providing a lot of the data used, full report here.
Many different industries are using Ethereum to build new decentralized applications.
2021 was the year when this vision stopped being reserved for a small subset of the population with pre-existing capital (investors) or technical expertise (developers), as the popularity of Ethereum reached new heights.
Artists are disrupting traditional notions of value, with OpenSea (the largest NFT Marketplace) growing its transactions volume by “over 600x” in a year.
People are organizing self-sustainable communities, as DAO members take control over their own financial freedom and digital identity.
Builders are creating never-before-seen decentralized financial assets, where Ethereum-based Uniswap continues to dominate. But real fun also came to crypto gaming: many are playing Dark Forest, a game that experiments with cutting edge scaling technology.
Most recently, the whole crypto community has come together to aid Ukraine, at the same rate as well-established international organizations.
Bringing Ethereum into the sun and serving all of humanity, inevitably requires a scalable, secure, and resilient network.
This post aims to set the stage for Ethereum as it nears its greatest milestone, and to take a peek at the future for what this could mean in impact for both staking providers and delegators, after the Altair upgrade. To do this, we have delved into risks, rewards and the complex network that sits in between.
The big goals for the future of Ethereum are scattered across its official roadmap.
Understanding this design is key to comprehending the associated risks and rewards of PoS Ethereum. The process of upgrading started in December 2020, when the first piece of the puzzle fell into place: the Beacon Chain went live. This PoS system sets the basic consensus mechanism, by assigning the right to create a block through a deterministic lottery process. Staking nodes with a higher balance have more probability to be selected. The rewards for staking include block rewards and transaction fees, and we explore these further in the following section.
To stake in Ethereum and run a validator, 32 ETH needs to be sent to the Ethereum Deposit Contract, along with two key parameters: 1) the validator public key and 2) the withdrawal credentials for the deposit. Critically, the public key and withdrawal credentials do not need to be controlled by the same entity. This allows for two ways to participate in the protocol: as a validator or as a delegator (individuals who pass the responsibility of validation while still earning a portion of the rewards). Staking providers such as Chorus One offer ETH holders the opportunity to stake their tokens and participate in consensus through its platform.
Because chosen stakers are given exclusive rights to create a block, the protocol must consist of measures to counteract malicious attack vectors. The implementation of this consensus mechanism relies on three core elements: A fork-choice rule, a concept of finality, and slashing conditions. It is important to note that in PoS networks, slashing is not a necessary incentive for correct behavior by validators but rather an artifact of the particular block rewards and mechanism implemented. Because rewards are based on blocks processed or accepted, there’s an incentive for a validator to validate all forks in the chain, even conflicting ones (nothing at stake). Therefore, a slashing rule has to be implemented, as a matter of design.
The Altair hard fork of October 2021 introduced additional elements to consensus, namely sync committees. Validators that are part of this committee have the duty of continually signing the block header to allow a new set of light clients to easily sync up at very low computational and data cost. These concepts of head of the chain, target of attestation and source of attestation are critical to finalizing blocks and earning rewards. Checkpoints are set on-chain to achieve these goals: when a checkpoint is finalized, all previous slots are finalized. There is no limit to the number of blocks that can go through this system. A checkpoint can only be finalized after the process of consensus chooses another validator, and the infinite machine starts all over again.
It is likely that you’ve come across the prime assumption for PoS: “validators will be lazy, take bribes, and that they will try to attack the system unless they are otherwise incentivized not to” Hope for the best, but expect the worst.
You may have also seen floating around different figures for the “estimated APR” for running a validator, and wondered — where does this number even come from? All estimations for returns rest on a set of assumptions, and many published calculations were presented using outdated specs for the Beacon Chain.
So, let’s take a current look. Incentives in Altair come in the form of rewards, penalties, and slashings. Of these three, slashing is the most relevant to validator health. While crypto rewards have been around for years, their complexity and adoption have seen a significant rise in the recent past. Offerings do differ platform by platform, and all carry different kinds of risks.
One of the main conceptual reworks of Altair was in redesigning how validators are rewarded (and penalized). The idea was to make these incentives more systematic and simplify state management. But it also ups the ante on validator responsibilities.
At present, validators are rewarded/penalized if they fulfill determined duties:
A validator can propose one attestation and one block at a time. Depending on their properties, the reward varies. Participation in proposals and in the sync committee are a matter of luck but quite infrequent, however, attestations should be done once per epoch.
How we view rewards while considering risk in staking is a subject of research at Chorus One. This piece aims for other validators and interested parties to understand the “main-principles” they need to follow in order to minimize losses, and in turn, maximize profits in the process of validation. In our study, we found that currently the expected annualized reward for an ideal validator (perfect performance) is 5.44%. This amount decreases to 5.4% when we take into account a less idealized case.
After providing validators a feeling for how much they stand to earn, the following part will present a more practical example and explain how these figures may actually vary.
Slashing risk is a type of platform-dependent risk, as platforms that offer a similar service carry common risks. This section refers to the different types of penalties, and methods to calculate them at certain scenarios.
All formulas presented have been transformed in order to give a more general idea. The risk modeling was done using the actual definition from the Beacon Chain specs (Phase 0 and Altair) and the state of the chain at the time of writing. More on our methods can be found in our full study, linked previously.
Slashing includes all penalties that result in the partial or total loss of the staked assets of a validator, which range from 0% to 100% of the assets. Failing to perform the current validator duties properly (see last section) leads to being penalized and, in the case of slashable actions, being forcefully ejected from the Beacon Chain for suspected malicious activity. This is done to protect both the validator from further losses, and to help the chain finalize.
The main reasons from slashing that validators must be aware of are: proposing two different (conflicting) blocks, submitting two different (conflicting) attestations and submitting an attestation that completely surrounds or is surrounded by another attestation. If these events are not the result of a malicious action, then it follows that they must come from a bug or error. To account for this, the amount of staked destroyed is proportional to the number of validators slashed around the same time. If this number is small, then it is unlikely to be the result of a coordinated attack because that would require a high number of validators. These “honest mistakes” are punished lightly, at a minimum of 1ETH. If, on the other hand, there’s a high number of validators slashed at the same time, then it is assumed to be an attack, resulting in a higher amount of stake being destroyed, up to the full balance of the node.
There’s of course a certain pressure on validators to avoid going out at the same time as other validators. This expectation to decentralize touches on aspects of client diversity, but also on sources of truth or hosting for clients. This is a very critical point for everyone participating in the Ethereum ecosystem, and one that Chorus One has considered in our design. But back to the topic, these penalties hold true whether or not blocks are being finalized (meaning, 2/3 of validators weighted by stake are online and their votes are being counted). This is the state of normal operations for Ethereum. Anything under that, and we can no longer reach agreement and the inactivity leak mentioned previously comes in to restore balance.
With a clear understanding of the rewards system, estimating the source of possible penalties is much more simple, by calculating the attestation reward/penalty delta.
Indeed, if the reward is not finalized, the corresponding amount is removed from the attester’s balance (the minimum penalty). At that point, the validator’s unlock date for the stake is delayed about 36 days. This is to allow another, potentially much greater, slashing penalty to be applied later, once the chain knows how many validators have been slashed together around the same time (further penalty). If an inactivity leak is active, then the potential reward drops to 0, so by fulfilling the duties you are only able to avoid penalties.
Since getting the source vote wrong implies getting the target vote wrong, and getting the target vote wrong implies getting the head vote wrong, the possible slashing scenarios reduce to these:
To quantify the outcomes for performing validator duties, we would like to compare what could be considered a generic validator across a selection of edge scenarios. This example takes into consideration the following values:
Perfect Validator
To start off, let’s look at what this validator would earn if they, and all other validators, had an ideal participation record under the defined specs.
Attestations can be rewarded with a portion of the “base reward” for each of the correlated duties, weighted by the specific service provided. In the latest specs, the target vote receives the highest rewards, as it is the most important to reach consensus. The base reward is a constant across the network at all times.
BASE REWARD (in Gwei) = Effective balance * [Base reward factor / sqrt(staked ETH balance)]BASE REWARD = 32,000,000,000 * [64 / sqrt(10,000,000,000,000,000)] = 20,480 Gwei = 0.00002048 ETH
Following the upgrade, the block reward allocated is now ⅛ of total rewards as intended by the Ethereum researchers, rather than ⅛ of ¼ of rewards, as was the case pre-Altair. You may notice the delay reward is missing. Now, all attestations are given specific inclusion deadlines to claim their rewards in a gradual pattern, so prompt voting is logically accounted for.
Since all validators are supposed to attest at least one time during an epoch (for a perfectly working network), the number of attesting validators is equal to the total active validators divided by the number of slots per epoch.
ATTESTING VALIDATORS = ACTIVE VALIDATORS / SLOTS PER EPOCHATTESTING VALIDATORS = 300,000 / 32 = 9,375 validatorsTOTAL REWARD = BASE REWARD * ATTESTING VALIDATORSTOTAL REWARD = 20,480 * 9,375 = 192,000,000 GweiBLOCK REWARD = TOTAL REWARD / 8 = 24,000,000 Gwei = 0,024 ETHTARGET REWARD = 26 * TOTAL REWARD / 64 = 78,000,000 Gwei = 0,078 ETHSOURCE REWARD = 14 * TOTAL REWARD / 64 = 42,000,000 Gwei = 0,042 ETHHEAD REWARD = 14 * TOTAL REWARD / 64 = 42,000,000 Gwei = 0,042 ETH
Sync committees rotate rather slowly (every 256 epochs or every day), and validators selected can earn the sync committee reward for each slot in which they participate. A high number of validators will not be actually selected for this reward in a year’s time.
SYNC COMMITTEE REWARD = 2 * TOTAL REWARD / 64 = 6,000,000 Gwei = 0,06 ETH
Finally, we see the maximum possible reward in an epoch (this number also coincides with the minimum penalty for being offline or failing to fulfill the previous duties):
MAXIMUM REWARD = (BLOCK+TARGET+SOURCE+HEAD+SYNC COMMITTEE) REWARDMAXIMUM REWARD = 0,246 ETH
It is important to note that there’s still a potential variation to this reward of a few percent over the course of a year due to sheer luck (e.g. the probability of being chosen to propose, be in the sync committee, being offline exactly at the moment you are selected, etc. This applies even considering this ideal case, where the validator performs all their duties perfectly. The effect increases as the validator set grows, due to probability. Although not worrying in terms of an investment risk (marginal differences should even out over the course of a year), it still should be kept in mind as we delve into actual performance of validators in the network.
If we were to expand this timeline to a year, then the expected reward for this single validator per year sits at around 1.7428 ETH, which corresponds to the 5.44%% APY we mentioned in the previous section. A validator can optimally earn one base reward per epoch over a long time horizon.
Realistic Validator
However, to get a bit closer to model real-world rewards, we must consider the impact of a less-than-perfect validator performance.
As we learned previously, rewards are maximized for validators the better the network behaves. This helps disincentivize malicious behavior but also means that rewards can be reduced by external factors. A model that considers all the reasons why this validator might fail to produce attestations, produce blocks, or fail to propagate is an option, but here we wanted to observe: what would happen if we assume that 99.25% (a fair figure in reality) of active validators are actually attesting blocks? Also, we wanted to make a more conservative choice and assume that our validator was online 99.9% of the time.
As we can see, in this new realistic scenario, the total distribution shifts slightly. The expected annualized reward suffers a reduction of about 0.8% and the resulting expected APY reduces to 5.4%, as we had mentioned. The probability of certain events happening plays a huge part in this scenario, so this is just a starting point to analyze.
Slashed Validator
Next we wanted to estimate what would happen if our validator was caught committing a slashable offense, the ones that were previously outlined to result in substantial loss of stake. To do this, we will assume that we simultaneously sign two different blocks with 1000 validators. In this case, we suffer three types of slashing for each validator involved:
This corresponds to a total loss of -0.8282 ETH. It is worth noting that this slashed amount increases with the number of validators that are slashed at the same time, as was discussed in the slashing overview.
PoS Ethereum is a highly complex and elaborate system. It is thoughtfully designed, but can be difficult to fully grasp from a validator’s perspective, which can make staking seem like an uncertain and unpredictable endeavor. There is still a compelling amount of ETH that is yet to be staked, therefore we must all prioritize network participation and security in the future.
To make sense of the opportunities presented by staking, we wanted to explore the risks native to Ethereum and how said risks stack up versus the offered rewards after the Altair upgrade. Hopefully this article has helped to clarify why and how these rewards can vary from small changes in state or from bigger events, and also show how staking is a profitable business to take part in the long term. As we found in our analysis, the profit of a single validator is around 1.7428 ETH per year, or if we prefer to see in terms of percentage, this corresponds to a 5.44%% APY.
Based on the analysis performed, we find that the most realistic impact is low enough for self-cover to be a viable option, but not low enough to be completely trivial. We have identified the most relevant scenarios to come up with this conclusion. Additionally, we have found that risk can be significantly reduced by non-financial actions, such as promoting validator diversity and operator distribution, as well as putting in place mechanisms to maintain high validation quality standards. You can read our full report here.
Taking Ethereum from the individual to the masses will require a set of tools that accelerate the process of setting-up a validator whilst maintaining the same level of security and protection. At Chorus One we are working to make this a reality through our infrastructure services, and we are preparing to launch new services in the near future that take this to the next level. To learn more, please reach out to research@chorus.one.
Stargaze is an interchain NFT marketplace that solves many problems that exist in NFT marketplaces today. Since January 1 2021, average daily NFT sales have gone from ~$300,000 USD to $73,000,000 USD as of November 26 2021 (a 24,333% increase). Currently, most NFT sales occur on Ethereum, which has popular marketplaces such as OpenSea, Rarible and Sorare. Like many things in crypto, adoption of a particular primitive tends to start on Ethereum and then expands to other blockchains when users start experiencing bottlenecks. Ronin, Wax, Solana and Flow are the four blockchains that trail Ethereum in 24hr NFT sales currently (as of November 26 2021). Blockchains that trail Ethereum in NFT sales address scalability issues that arise from Ethereum’s network congestion. However, many NFT marketplaces that exist on competing blockchains enforce restrictions on how NFT projects can utilise them. With the advent of Stargaze, the Cosmos ecosystem has a dedicated zone for NFTs that does not suffer from scalability issues whilst differentiating from existing NFT marketplaces by being more secure, decentralised, transparent and flexible.
Stargaze is a fully decentralised NFT marketplace in the Cosmos ecosystem, which launched Mainnet Phase 0 on October 30th 2021. Recently, Stargaze announced 25% of their token supply will be ‘fairdropped’ to ATOM and OSMO stakers + to Stargaze validator delegators on Cosmos, Osmosis & Regen. For those who did not qualify for the airdrop, Stargaze is offering early adopters the chance to purchase STARS in a Liquidity Bootstrapping Pool (LBP) held in Osmosis as part of Mainnet Phase 1. The construction of the STARS / OSMO LBP is first-of-its-kind, as Stargaze proposed to borrow OSMO to kickstart the initial STARS / OSMO pool weights. The borrowed OSMO will be returned at the end of the LBP when STARS / OSMO weights are 50/50 and STARS has achieved price discovery. After the LBP has concluded, Stargaze will activate inflation in Mainnet Phase 2 and delegators will have the opportunity to earn staking rewards for securing the network. Finally, Stargaze will go fully-live with their decentralised NFT marketplace as part of Mainnet Phase 3 in Q1 2022, unleashing unmatched economic freedom for creators, stellar incentives for curators and superior security for NFT traders.
There are a number of issues that exist in NFT marketplaces today such as centralised curation, bad security, difficult upload workflows, limited flexibility, high gas fees, scams, intransparency of marketplace contracts and royalty restrictions.
In September 2021, the Head of Product at OpenSea used internal information to buy NFTs before they were featured on the homepage and ‘flipped’ them once featured for a profit, which in traditional finance would be considered insider trading. This is an outcome of OpenSea being non-transparent and centralised and could have been mitigated if NFT curation in OpenSea was decentralised. In the same month (September 2021), a critical security vulnerability was disclosed to OpenSea. The critical security vulnerability detected in OpenSea involved attackers airdropping SVG files to OpenSea users, which if signed by a user upon opening (even if opened on the OpenSea domain ingenuously) would give an attacker full access to a user’s funds in the wallet the malicious NFT was being viewed from. On top of these evident issues, OpenSea also restricts NFT projects to setting a maximum of 10% for royalties from sales. Lest we mention that at current ETH gas prices (124 gwei), it costs minimum $200 to buy or sell an NFT on OpenSea, which prices out a majority of retail. However, high gas prices on Ethereum for buyers and sellers can minimise scam collections, which are more commonplace on cheaper blockchains like Solana. Metaplex, a major NFT platform on Solana, also has their own issues when it comes to difficult NFT upload workflows. Finally, many existing NFT marketplaces are not open-source, which increases risks when interacting with the native smart contracts (as users have to rely on one auditing party.
So, what if I told you that a new NFT marketplace is emerging in the Cosmos ecosystem that offers high-quality security, decentralised curation, simple upload workflows, maximum flexibility, low transaction fees, open-source contracts, vetted projects and unlimited customisation of economic parameters?
Stargaze is opting to build out a zone using Cosmos SDK, which enables the network to have an unparalleled level of security and customisation vs existing NFT marketplaces. Cosmos SDK is built with capabilities in mind, which capitalises on least authority to minimise possible exploits at the execution layer. As Stargaze is its own sovereign chain, it also has 100 reputable validators securing it, all of which are specialised solely on verifying transactions that occur in the zone and can react quickly to upgrading the network to enhance the performance and/or security of it. This is completely different to NFT marketplaces on Ethereum and Solana, which are built as applications and have a reliance on validators to secure the underlying network as opposed to the application itself being in full control of its own security. Separately, the Stargaze NFT marketplace is built using CosmWasm, which is orders of magnitude more secure than the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) because EVM attack vectors such as re-entrancy are not possible. All in all, Stargaze leveraging Cosmos SDK and CosmWasm ensures the network is secure and reliable.
Stargaze introduces a new type of ecosystem actor into their NFT marketplace, namingly, the CurationDAO. The CurationDAO in Stargaze is responsible for curating what artwork can be traded in the marketplace. The DAO is membership-based and is governance-driven, ensuring an open and transparent system is in place for the selection of artwork in the marketplace. Stargaze governance may incentivise the CurationDAO by directing an amount of STARS from emitted inflation to reward their work. Having a DAO that curates what is available on the Stargaze marketplace results in better due diligence of projects and reduces the surface area for scams. It could be expected that Stargaze users (both buyers and sellers) benefit from having a CurationDAO too, as only legitimate projects will be able to be traded, which should lead to more liquid markets.
The Stargaze marketplace has a built-in feature that gives NFT projects the flexibility to choose what type of launch they would like to have (e.g. first-come-first-served mint, auction over t periods, etc). The flexibility of launch options offered by Stargaze allows NFT projects to satisfy demands of their community by working closely with them to determine what type of launch is fairest. Stargaze being a sovereign chain also lets governance exercise a high-level of customisation on protocol parameters, which is beneficial for keeping the network competitive in the long-run. For example, governance could vote on specific network upgrades proposed to improve the performance of the network (which would not be possible in an NFT marketplace that existed as an application). In turn, Stargaze can be much more adaptive than existing NFT marketplaces because governance can vote on introducing changes at the network level to give it a competitive edge.
The Stargaze marketplace provides a simple interface for NFT projects to upload files and add metadata into, which uploads to Interplanetary File System (IPFS) in a matter of seconds. Files that are uploaded in Stargaze are immediately and permanently stored in a distributed and resilient system. The user experience is seamless, as the entire storage process is abstracted away from the end-user via nft.storage. All Stargaze users can be rest assured that the NFTs they own are permanently available, unlike some NFT collections that rely on a third party to host the file the NFT points to.
Fees on Stargaze are negligible compared to what can be seen on Ethereum, so the network is accessible to all types of users (not just those with a high amount of initial capital). It can be expected that fees will be just high enough to prevent spam but low enough to encourage frequent use. Low fees in an NFT marketplace enable more growth and innovation as buyers have greater purchasing power and projects can release more NFTs without transaction fee concerns.
Another unique layer of customisation available on Stargaze vs other NFT marketplaces is that of staking on the native network. One could imagine utility being introduced to STARS that would not be possible on existing NFT marketplaces like OpenSea. For example, in the future users might be able to deposit their STARS into a liquid staking protocol to receive the equivalent staked STARS (stSTARS) that could be used to bid on NFTs (i.e. users could earn yield whilst bidding on NFTs). It might also be a requirement to stake STARS in order to join the CurationDAO (the DAO responsible for selecting what collections are released on Stargaze). Or perhaps, users could stake a minimum amount of STARS in a given time period to be eligible to vote on what collections are reviewed by the CurationDAO. Another option could be to stake some amount of STARS in order to have a higher chance of getting into lottery-based NFT launches. There are limitless possibilities that could be thought of to add utility to STARS. On the flipside of staking STARS, the inflation emitted by Stargaze could also be used to reward creators of NFT projects. Once an NFT project has been vetted by the CurationDAO, it might be eligible to earn x% of staking rewards reserved for creators. In other words, NFT project creators might be entitled to a double source of income in Stargaze — royalties coming from trading of their NFTs on the marketplace + their proportion of a steady stream of STARS emitted every block directed towards creators.
Stargaze code is fully open-source and the core team recently released a LBP simulator that other projects in the Cosmos ecosystem can use to experiment with tweaking parameters before launching an LBP on Osmosis. The Stargaze code is available in a repository on Github for anyone to see, which means anyone can audit the code to ensure there are no vulnerabilities and engineers can easily build on top of existing code to enhance the platform in a collaborative way.
To conclude, Stargaze is a marketplace that exemplifies security, decentralisation, transparency and flexibility, which differentiates it from any existing competition from NFT marketplaces. Due to the nascency of the NFT space, there are many existing inefficiencies in NFT marketplaces across a multitude of blockchains. Stargaze has an opportunity to capture a large segment of a growing NFT market by offering distinct products and services for stakeholders such as NFT projects, curators and users. Novel web3 products will be built out that incorporate Stargaze NFTs in ways we cannot possibly imagine. A new era of interchain NFTs is upon us, enter Stargaze.
Written by Xavier Meegan, Research Analyst at Chorus One
Chorus One is offering staking services and building tools that advance the Proof-of-Stake ecosystem.
Website: https://chorus.one
Twitter: https://twitter.com/chorusone
Telegram: https://t.me/chorusone
Newsletter: https://substack.chorusone.com
Website: https://stargaze.zone/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/StargazeZone
Stargaze LBP Details: https://gov.osmosis.zone/proposal/discussion/2882-details-and-parameters-of-stargaze-lbp-on-osmosis/
800,000 LDO and many more rewards are live on Lido for Solana and its DeFi integrations
Lido for Solana launched about a month ago and so far north of $200m worth of SOL has already been staked with Lido. Today, we are glad to announce that further liquidity pools and the first liquidity rewards in LDO tokens bridged from Ethereum will start to be distributed.
Holders of stSOL can now supply liquidity to pools like stSOL-SOL, stSOL-USDC, and even stSOL-wstETH
Users providing liquidity to pools will be rewarded in LDO and, for some pools, tokens from our partners ( ORCAfor the Orca pool and MER in the Mercurial Finance pool). In addition, LPs will also collect a portion of pool swap fees and accrue value in their stSOL tokens in accordance with Lido for Solana’s staking APR.
As promised we have partnered with various AMMs to utilize stSOL — the liquid representation of your SOL stake in Lido. To bootstrap and incentivize liquidity providers Lido has initiated the formation of the various pools. Holders of stSOL can now supply liquidity to pools like stSOL-SOL, stSOL-USDC, and even stSOL-wstETH— a first-of-its-kind liquidity pool with two value-accruing Lido liquid staking assets, with wstETH being bridged via Wormhole’s decentralized validator set.
800,000 LDO will be distributed as LP rewards over 2 months on Solana AMMs
The following list contains the current stSOL liquidity integrations:
www.orca.so
Orca has launched a stSOL-wstETH (the wrapped version of Lido’s stETH). This is especially good news for stETH holders. Now, in addition to earning rewards by staking ETH and SOL, you get additional yield by adding liquidity to the wstETH-stSOL pool on Orca. Liquidity providers on Orca will earn 250,000 LDO supplemented by about 35,000 ORCA over the initial
8 weeks of this pool being live.
This first-of-its-kind liquidity pool is a very cool DeFi product! Not only is it composed of two staked assets earning staking rewards, but it also has one of these bridged over to Solana from Ethereum in a decentralized way, highlighting the power of cross-chain DeFi!
To participate in the Orca pool visit the guide linked below.
docs.solana.lido.fi
The amazing Mercurial Finance team went live with a stSOL/SOL pool that will use our internal price oracle to create a maximally efficient liquidity pool. Providers of liquidity to Mercurial will earn 150,000 LDO and matched MER rewards on top of the swap rewards while resting assured that their passive LP position is not exposed to impermanent loss. Read more about this integration.
blog.mercurial.finance
We’ve launched a stSOL-USDC pool in collaboration with Raydium. Providers of liquidity to this pool will collect 250,000 LDO over 2 months in addition to the LP rewards from swaps on the OG of decentralized exchanges that integrates with Solana’s order book DEX Serum.
Finally, Saber, the leading cross-chain stablecoin and wrapped assets exchange on Solana, has launched the stSOL-SOL pool that currently holds TVL of $160M. Liquidity providers stand to gain 150,000 LDO in addition to the LP rewards and SBR yields for this pool. These rewards will be activated once Saber supports cross-incentivization. The stSOL-SOL Saber yield farm can be found here
Lido DAO in partnership with Lido for Solana multisig has transferred LDO incentives from Ethereum to Solana by using the decentralized Wormhole v2 token bridge.
As listed above, 800,000 LDO will be distributed as LP rewards over 2 months on Solana AMMs to bootstrap liquidity for SOL.
Keep a lookout for this and further upcoming integrations at the liquid staking page on Chorus’s website.
chorus.one
Chorus One is offering staking services and building protocols and tools to advance the Proof-of-Stake ecosystem.
Website: https://chorus.one
Twitter: https://twitter.com/chorusone
Telegram: https://t.me/chorusone
Newsletter: https://substack.chorusone.com
Lido for Solana is governed by the Lido Decentralized Autonomous Organization (Lido DAO). Members of the DAO — holders of the LDO governance token — can vote on high-level proposals, such as whether to expand to a new chain. For day-to-day tasks, we have a much more narrowly scoped need for somebody to execute privileged operations: an administrator.
The administrator rights reside with a 4-out-of-7 multisig that consists of established validators and ecosystem partners. Last week, we successfully set up the multisig on Lido for Solana Testnet. In the coming days, the same will repeat for the mainnet launch, beyond which all new proposals by Lido DAO will be processed via this multisig structure.
This post explores why multisig is important in making Lido for Solana secure and efficient and the way forward for governance in Lido for Solana.
Multi-signature is a digital signature scheme that allows a group of users to sign a single transaction. The transaction could be a governance proposal, a snapshot vote, or even a simple fund transfer instruction. A common terminology to describe a multisig setup is m-of-n multisig. Given n parties with their own private keys, at least m of the private keys must sign a transaction to perform a transaction. For example, a multisig that has 7 members in the group and requires 4 signatures for a transaction to be fully signed — will be termed 4-of-7 multisig
Before we answer the question — why do we need multisig administration? — let us first understand how it supplements DAO governance.
In a DAO governance model, decisions get executed automatically through smart contracts as a result of LDO governance token holders voting on these decisions. This results in a decentralized governance model and eliminates dependence on a centralized authority to execute decisions thereby removing the risk of a single point of failure.
However, in the case of Lido for Solana, even though decisions are taken by the Lido DAO, they are executed by the multisig administration.
To understand why offloading the decision-execution to multisig administration is a good approach let’s look at the different administration methods that are possible in such a scenario
A good middle ground between these two extremes is multisig, a program that executes administrative tasks after m out of n members have approved. For m greater than one, no single party can unilaterally execute administrative tasks. At the same time, we only need to coordinate with m parties (instead of a majority of LDO holders) to get something done.
The benefits of multisig don’t end here. Using a multisig eliminates a lot of concerns that a typical user might have while investing. Let’s take a look at some of the other problem areas that the use of a multisig addresses.
Can I trust the creators of the program to not change critical parameters of their own accord?
There is always the risk that an administrator (the authority that executes the DAO’s decisions) can start executing decisions arbitrarily. By including multiple parties in the multisig, we reduce the points of trust and make the decision execution more decentralized.
Can Lido for Solana perform program upgrades quickly, in case of a critical bug?
A pitfall of on-chain governance is that in the case a critical bug-fix is required, achieving consensus on-chain could prove to be too slow and very costly as a result.
A completely decentralized model of governance slows down project execution, especially if a project is in its initial stages. There is always a tradeoff between the ease of execution and the degree of decentralization. However, that does not mean that one should do away with decentralization completely.
A governance model carried out by a multisig administration is the perfect compromise for a project like Lido for Solana. This lends it speed to execute decisions quickly in the earlier stages and also mitigates the risk of delayed fixing of critical bugs.
Who decides which upgrades will happen in the future and can I trust them to remain benevolent?
Decision on Program Upgrades
The multisig decides on program upgrades. To understand why this is a reasonable solution, we need to take a look at the two possible extreme cases.
1) Single upgrade authority — In Solana the upgrade authority — the address that can sign upgrades — has a lot of power. A single upgrade authority could upgrade programs maliciously at will. For example, a malicious upgrade authority could upload a new version of the Lido program that withdraws all Lido funds into some address and runs away with the funds!
2) No upgrades allowed — On the other hand, if we don’t allow the program to be upgraded at all, and then if it turns out to contain a critical bug, we can’t fix it.
So, a multisig is a good middle ground, where no single entity can take control over the programs and their funds, but we can still enable upgrades.
Trusting Multisig to remain benevolent
The DAO can be trusted because the Lido DAO is large and decentralized, and consists of stakeholders who are aligned long-term. The proposals they vote positively on are by definition aligned with the interests of the stakeholders.
The multisig executes the decisions taken by the DAO. The multisig can be trusted because the multisig participants in turn are all reputable industry partners; their reputation is at stake if they suddenly go rogue!. Additionally, no single multisig member has anything to gain by going rogue.
Why can’t Lido DAO’s proposals be executed directly on-chain?
This is because Lido DAO uses Ethereum for governance and to be able to implement Lido DAO’s decisions on Solana blockchain cross-chain execution is required. Cross-chain governance, at this point, is not mature or fast enough to be a feasible solution.
Therefore, the role of multisig then becomes that of executing the decisions made by the Lido DAO. The governance authority, which is Lido DAO, sets the long-term goals and decides on major proposals. The administrator, multisig in this case, then upgrades the program accordingly and changes its parameters.
Governance — Lido DAO
Administration — Multisig.
Is the source code public and has it been verified that the Lido program is built from that source code?
It is imperative for users, who invest their SOL in Lido, to be sure that the Lido program does not contain any backdoors or hidden features that might hurt their investments. One way to be sure of this is to know that the multisig owners have verified that the Lido and multisig programs were built from the source code that is publicly available
Furthermore, even the users can verify this fact themselves if they wish to do so.
How can I trust the parties involved in this multisig?
Another aspect of transparency inherent to Lido for Solana is the fact that we have made public the names of all 7 organizations that are part of the multisig ceremony. By doing so, users know which parties control the program and can decide whether they trust these parties. We embolden the trust of our users by including only reputable participants and by making sure that this is public information.
Multisig ceremony is the process that the multisig uses to execute decisions. On a high level, this process works as a series of steps.
As explained earlier, multisig programs require multiple signatures to approve a transaction. This allows the signers to review an action on the blockchain before it is executed — making for decentralized governance. Chorus One is using the Serum Multisig program to introduce decentralization in Lido for Solana. The Multisig that we have set up has 7 participants and requires at least 4 of them to sign for a transaction to be approved.
The 7 parties that comprise the multisig are
For now, the power to upgrade the Lido program (upon recommendation of DAO) rests with the multisig, but in the long-term Lido for Solana’s governance would be a completely on-chain decision-making process where the LDO token holders vote with their share on a proposal and collectively accept or reject it.
Decentralized policy-making in the crypto world is a complex problem. Top-down governance, as in the case of centralized organizations, is easy to implement but may not represent the best interests and needs of the stakeholders. On the other hand, a horizontal mode of decentralized governance promises a fairer representation of the voice of stakeholders but is much harder to implement.
There are multiple governance frameworks out there that exhibit varying degrees of decentralization and ease of execution. There is always a tradeoff between how easily one can implement a governance model v/s how decentralized it is. Early on, in a project’s life cycle a less decentralized but easily executable governance model makes more sense.
The long-term goal for Lido for Solana is to have a decentralized governance system with on-chain execution of decisions. In the meantime, executing decisions through a multisig helps us move quickly in the early stages, without having to trust a single party.
In terms of the project roadmap, going ahead we are looking for another audit of our code. That coupled with the results of a bug bounty will put us on the path to the mainnet launch.
Lido for Solana is poised to become the largest liquid staking solution in the market and through DAO governance and multisig administration, we make it secure and efficient. We are committed to reduce the trust surfaces required in Lido for Solana and to keep securely developing this project at a swift pace.
To read about Lido for Solana’s project roadmap please visit
medium.com
Our content is intended to be used and must be used for educational purposes only. It is not intended as legal, financial or investment advice and should not be construed or relied on as such. The information is general in nature and has not taken into account your personal financial position or objectives. Before making any commitment of financial nature you should seek advice from a qualified and registered financial or investment adviser. Chorus One does not recommend that any cryptocurrency should be bought, sold, or held by you. Any reference to past or potential performance is not, and should not be construed as, a recommendation or as a guarantee of any specific outcome or profit. Always remember to do your own research.
Chorus One is offering staking services and building protocols and tools to advance the Proof-of-Stake ecosystem.
Website: https://chorus.one
Twitter: https://twitter.com/chorusone
Telegram: https://t.me/chorusone
Newsletter: https://substack.chorusone.com
.png)
