Great point. Perhaps we could only open the transfer window outside of the proposal time windows? That way we could ensure no duplication of vote occurs, as well as allow the stakers to keep their precious JUP secured.
1 Like
Thank you for your support. Is this technically feasible? @MeowZe
2 Likes
Thank you, bro. Your proposal helped get this issue some attention, which is great for the cause. LFG!
2 Likes
one way is to allow stakers to mint a transferrable token redeemable in their new wallet representing their staking position
4 Likes
Do you know of any governance protocol that uses this idea?
It seems like a huge revamp to tackle one problem. You could simply buy a ledger that you only keep your jup for voting in. Nothing else
If weāre going to move to a model that allows for staked tokens to be transferred I would expect other features to make it worthwhile, like your staking power being represented with liquid tokens that are tradeable or can be used in Defi. (Not 1:1 with JUP). Or something more interesting like delegating all your voting power to one of your wallets @Crypto_Minion
1 Like
This is a very good Idea, I was recently thinking about the same thing as Iām not feeling comfortable holding all my staked JUP on only one wallet (in case of hack).
I started to unlock some to transfer to another wallet but it makes itās tricky to not miss a vote!
A JUP profile (as Sanctum) where you could link all your wallets which allows you to hold your staked JUP on different wallet but voting with all voting power with one wallet, could also be awesome!
1 Like
Great proposal! Allowing staked JUP tokens to be transferred while maintaining the 30-day lock would enhance security without losing governance rights. The loan idea to bypass the unstaking wait is also interesting. Looking forward to seeing how the community reacts!
3 Likes
I believe I had seen something similar with Polkadot, however, instead of transferring staked tokens themselves, one was able to transfer the ownership to another key.
To your point, we should look at the technical feasibility and get some high-level tshit sizing done on the effort to ensure it is worthwhile to pursue. Now that stakers are also getting a share of Jupuary based on consistency, it does not make sense to unstake and move to a new wallet either.
The solution does not need to be as stated in the proposal if I am being honest about it. I am highlighting a problem rather, and expecting for us as a community to come up with better solutions to help address the problem statement.
3 Likes
Delegation will allow you choose a wallet (for example a hot wallet) that can exercise your voting power during votes. This way the tokens you keep in your ledger are safe while you can still use your full voting power and earn ASR.
this is perfect idea
1 Like
I think this a great idea! We should put it to a vote, and enact it if it passes. What do yāall think?
Why This Proposal is Problematic
While the proposal to allow the transfer of staked JUP tokens aims to address wallet security concerns, it inadvertently introduces significant risks. It undermines the fundamental principles of the governance and staking system. Below are the key issues with this proposal:
1. Security Risks May Increase
Wallet Theft: If a userās wallet is compromised, its staked JUP tokens can be stolen directly. This outcome directly contradicts the proposalās intended purpose by putting usersā security at greater risk.
2. Governance Manipulation Risk
A user could transfer their tokens to another wallet and participate in multiple votes within the same lock period.
3. Undermining the Purpose of the ā30-Day Lock Periodā
Users could circumvent the lock period by continuously transferring their tokens. Furthermore, staked JUP tokens could be bought and sold between users, effectively nullifying the intended purpose of the lock mechanism.
1 Like