Hello Moonbeam community! We’re here to discuss an important RT upgrade concerning the orbiter accounts. Let’s break it down:
We’re considering an RT upgrade to remove the required bonds from orbiter accounts.
- Background: After our forum discussion, a proposal was made to increase the minimum bond for new collators from 100,000 to 2,000,000 GLMR.
- The Issue: This change inadvertently doubled the rewards for new orbiters. How? The collator bond earns delegation rewards as if it’s a collator. When the set was increased (as discussed here), one slot was an orbiter account. MBF bonded 2,000,000 GLMR to this account due to the new minimum. This means the new orbiter account is earning more rewards (on the 2M) compared to the old accounts (on 100k).
- Result: The 6 new orbiters are getting more the rewards as the previous 24 orbiters.
Pros of the Upgrade:
- Even Payouts: This will ensure that payouts are consistent for future program expansions regardless of the current collator bond amount.
- More Treasury Rewards: The treasury will benefit from the rewards of 2M GLMR, which is approximately 200k/year at a 10% rate.
Cons of the Upgrade:
- Reduced Rewards for Old Orbiters: The older orbiters will see a slight reduction in their rewards by about 5%.
What’s Potentially Next?
We’re considering exempting orbiter pool accounts from posting a collator bond when joining the set of candidates, so that we don’t have to make adjustments for future program expansions.
hi @_phyn ! this is indeed an unfortunate result of the increased bond amount. Maybe I am misreading, but in the new proposed RT upgrade regarding the cons. The 24 orbiters that are already being rewarded based off the 100k bond will see an additional reduction by 5%? What about the 6 recent orbiters…they will take a higher reduction to match the older 24 orbiters rewards?
I am all for the “pros” of the RT upgrade, especially increased treasury funds to be used for future grants, and other projects. I am just not fully clear on the impact of the “cons” exactly.
Hi, would like to see a RT there to make things even.
There should be an option to make rewards equal among orbitters, no matter how old they are.
This proposal would reduce the required collator bond for all Orbiter pool accounts to zero, so it’s no longer in the payout equation. That way the Collator bond can be adjusted independently of the Orbiters program.
The 6 new orbiters would see a larger reduction because their orbiter pool account has a much larger bond receiving rewards. The exact amount depends on the total delegations to the orbiter pool account which changes, but it’s about a 50% reduction to make the last 6 orbiters even with the first 24.
Hi @_phyn , thanks for the transparency for this. I am in favor of the RT to remove the bond for Orbiters. Gravity to keep them in place should be sufficient enough without the bond.
if orbiter bond is eventually no longer needed, does that also imply current orbiters could withdraw their bond?
Hi! All orbiters should have same reward no matter if they old or new. I was joined in first batch and the price was much bigger then now. This would be unfair.
Fully supporting this upgrade to make it fair game for everyone involved.
We did not see this coming (I was under the impression that the collator rewards are distributed from the foundation and not directly from the collator).
As one of the original orbiters, I fully support this upgrade as well! However, I would like to second @curu24`s question about the bond, is the initial 40k still going to be needed after this upgrade? @_phyn @artkaseman
There’s no change to anything related to the orbiters themselves so any bonds would stay the same for all orbiters.
The change only relates to the parachain staking to reduce the bond for staking candidates which are also among the orbiter pool.
While this proposal doesn’t necessarily go back and make things totally equal for everyone over history, it will put the distribution across orbiters back into balance going forward.
We have an opportunity to includes this in RT 2600 but the window is quickly closing. I would propose we move forward with it in RT2600 to remediate the go forward as soon as possible.
Based on the responses here, it would seem folks are supportive of the go-forward adjustment and so the fix should be included in RT2600.