You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Unstake SPS Early with Penalty

in #spsproposallast year (edited)

"Therefore, the total fee associated with this is roughly 510k-570k SPS, or roughly $7k to $7.8k USD"

When I understand the system correctly the weight of SPS is taken when you vote and won't change anymore (why otherwise their is the Power-Up-Tab ?).

So in this case you can unstake the SPS with 4% fee, send them to another account and vote with this acoount a second time with the same SPS (or than only with 96% of the SPS) - in every case it would make it much cheaper than you calculated, so it would be "only" 240k SPS instead of roughly 510 till 570k SPS - or how you plan to prevent this ?

Sort:  

Indeed, very good point.
From my understanding there is no way to prevent it in the proposal but it could be mitigated by checking the actual SPS holding of each voting account at vote closure time.
It would prevent this hack as the SPS transferred would account only for the 2nd account and not the first one anymore. It would also remove that strange need to "update" your vote.

Still that's a lot of work for this feature, it would be nice to assign a priority level to a proposal when voting just so we are sure it won't impact the development of core game features.

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

Indeed, that works as well but the important point is that at the end of the voting time, each voter is accounted for it's true amount of stacked SPS.
But yeah, 4% or 5% now is still way too much money for swinging a vote, and it will further increase is the SPS value increases as well.

Great point, I will speak with Matt about how we could potentially circumvent this from a technical standpoint. Furthermore, it seems most people believe 4% is too low, so I may just increase the proposed fee from 4% to 5% and this will increase the cost by 20%.

With that being said, even 240k SPS (or 288k SPS if 5%) is still a fair bit to be honest, and there will be very few proposals that are even that close for this to be effective.

However, you still make a great point I will include in the article

Add a penalty for the SPS vote, the option is the same but your vote it's reduced a 50% for 7 days, for example?, just my two cents. I don't think it's a bad idea to give options, so I'm voting favorably if this gets implemented, without a limitation in the votes, I would fear for an exploit.

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

Confirmation of powering down votes upon insta withdrawl/unstake combined with a couple security features like "opting in" & having a visual cue for it easily visible on your account as stated by @davemccoy has made it a yes for me (:

👍Good to know, I will upvote the proposal then.

The following edit has been added:
"A valid concern raised by @udow is the potential for individuals to unstake and cast votes across multiple accounts using the same amount of SPS, effectively reducing the fee to 5% or 288k SPS according to the calculation above. While I remain optimistic that this will not evolve into a significant issue, given the rarity of such close calls, even if such instances arise, I truly doubt anyone would be willing to spend such a substantial portion of their personal wealth to influence a vote. I will also consult with Matt to explore potential technical measures that could be implemented to mitigate this risk. One example could involve automatically "powering down" the votes of individuals who choose to early withdraw, thereby addressing this potential loophole"

This can be a significant issue. This can be a potential exploit please edit the proposal to include a fix while talking to Matt otherwise this doesn't work

The potential fix I will speak to Matt about is simply ensuring when a user instant withdraws, it also "powers down" their votes, similar to how you can "power up" if you stake more. This means this exploit will no longer work.

If you unstake currently you do not "power down" as you cannot make it liquid before a vote ends anyway, so the normal unstake function does not need to change.