OIP-3 - Staking Allocation & Mechanism

This is a community proposal for possible changes for the existing staking allocation and staking mechanism.

TÜRKÇE İÇİN: https://forum.omchain.io/t/oip-3-staking-mekanizmasi-turkce

Current Situation

We are distributing 3.08% each month for the staked tokens on the smart contract. Currently the amount of staked tokens are roughly 58M in the smart contract, with additional rewards not deposited to the contract, we estimate total stake amount to be 60-65M.

With this in mind we are distributing 1.8-2M tokens each month as reward and with current price this is equivalent of $46K worth of tokens. The staking mechanism was sustainable when our token price was trading at $0.004-0.005 however it is clear now that such rate is not sustainable for the long term.


We have asked community to state their opinions on the staking allocation and staking rewards for over a month now and we realized that there is no established consensus. Each community member have their own opinion so it’s very hard for us to come up with a proposal that will be accepted by everyone. That’s why, this proposal will suggest a few different mechanisms and a rejection option. If the proposal is rejected, we will further discuss another staking option until community feels okay with the proposal or accept direct proposals from community members.


Some members of the community stated that if we completely burn the staking tokens or reduce the rate there might be stakers who will be unstaking and starting to sell their tokens, which will cause a pressure on the token price. While this is a valid concern, our findings reveal that;

Before our price action in January, the total amount of tokens that were deposited on the MEXC platform were around 7 Million tokens. With the price increase, this amount became 21 Million tokens. Additionally Bitmart and Biconomy wallets in total contain another 5 Million tokens which makes the grand total 26 Million tokens. With the price increase we can see that 25% of the staked tokens were already moved to the exchanges for taking profit.

This brings up another question, if we distribute 50M more tokens as rewards, with next price increase we might see additional 12.5M tokens ending up in the exchanges and being exchanged thus creating a sell pressure on the token’s price.

Also the concern that says “lower staking rate will make stakers sell their tokens” has another side too, if a user is dedicated to staking for a long time, then it’s wiser for them to have increased price over long time rather than having short term spikes in the price. For example;

  • A user stakes 1M tokens, bought at $0.01 (total $10K worth investment)
  • Staker receives 3.08% each month and sells those tokens on the market, making $308 a month
  • After one year staker profited $3700 from the income from staking and selling on the market, however, if token price goes down by 37% - they are at break even at the end of the year.
  • Additionally the staker might receive less than $5K while they are trying to sell the 1M tokens on the market after a price crash at the end of the year, thus losing money.

Considering each and every staker, while they like to have profit, would not want their capital to become worthless over time, we believe that a reduced rate would still attract stakers because at the end, short term high rates cause an illusion that would create a lot more problems when the stakers wish to cash out on the next price increase.


With all the stats and facts and opinions from community in mind, we came up with a few options for community to vote. PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE ARE NOT THE FINAL DECISIONS FOR THE STAKING AS COMMUNITY HAVE THE FINAL SAYING ON THE DECISIONS AND CAN REQUEST ANOTHER PROPOSAL AT ANY TIME

Option 1: Burn all the staking allocation and cancel staking program

This was suggested by a few community members both publicly and a few who reached us out privately. If this option is selected, the staking allocation will be burnt after distributing all the rewards accrued so far. This will bring the end of the staking era on Omchain and there will be no more OMC added to circulation.

Please understand that canceling the staking program might result in stakers to sell their tokens and create a sell pressure on the exchange and price to crash. However, it would eliminate the additional $50K worth OMC issuance each month.

Considering that after this proposal is selected and price crashes 80%, we would have $200-250K worth tokens to be sold on the market. The price would be crashed 80% (which might initially seem like a bad thing) but on the other hand, once that $200-250K sell pressure is lifted over a few months, we wouldn’t have any more $50K issuance each month. With current method we are estimated to have the same sell pressure over the next 2 years.

Another concern with this option is that once staking program is cancelled, there might not be enough demand for the OMC. This concern is truthful at the moment since there are not many projects launched on Omchain, however, over time this concern must be eliminated with new protocols and products integrated to Omchain.

Option 2: Distributing staking rewards over 10 years

In this option we can distribute 5M tokens each year at most, and dynamically adjust staking income depending on the amount of tokens being staked. With current staking stats this would be roughly 8-10% staking incentives per year and would reduce over time with more tokens staked in the following years. It would ensure that maximum 416K tokens issued each month, which is $9.5K with current price of $0.023

Overall, considering the project’s roadmap and adoption, this could be a feasible option for both stakers for holding tokens for the long term and short term traders because they can profit with even 15% price change range over the year.

This method would again have minimum lock duration of 30 days and compounding options each month.

Option 3: Different lock periods with changing staking rates

In this option we would have different staking rates with NO WAY TO WITHDRAW BEFORE THE STAKE END PERIOD different time periods.

What we propose is;

  • 3% APY for 30 days of staking and 1 day unlocking period (0.25% for 30 days)
  • 5% APY for 60 days of staking and 2 days unlocking period (0.41% for 30 days)
  • 10% APY for 180 days of staking and 3 days unlocking period (0.83% for 30 days)
  • 25% APY for 360 days of staking and 7 days unlocking period (2.08% for 30 days)
  • 40% APY for 720 days of staking and 14 days unlocking period (3.33% for 30 days)

This way short term stakers would have a chance to speculate on lower APY. This would additionally be reducing the sell pressure on the project by large stakers per month since there are no more unlocked rewards per month but still giving them a chance that they can earn a considerable amount of tokens over the long run. This would still have 50M tokens to be distributed via staking.

This proposal would give project some time to have apps deployed on top of it and different protocols enabled, thus when the year or two years staking periods end, the rewards accrued from those stakes could be sold without any problem on the market assuming that Omchain would be further adopted (that’s the assumption of the long term stakers).

Option 4: Reject Proposal

This option means that you don’t want to vote for any options stated above and you wish that another proposal is made or proposal is divided into smaller parts. If you vote for reject proposal, community will be coming up with another proposal(s) for the staking allocation and mechanism.

Further Notice

The community always has the final saying over the decisions we are making or asking for suggestions. We want the full community involvement on this proposal as it’s going to effect the project’s fundamental token issuance mechanism. We want everyone to be on boarded with the decision being made. Thus, we require total of at least 20M OMC voting power to be included in the decision making. If the total amount of votes is less than 20M OMC, we will consider that community participation was not enough and we will seek for ways to make more members to participate.


Before this proposal is carried to the vote, please share your suggestions below for us to evaluate and include in the proposal.


let’s burn them all president

Please comment on Turkish topic in Turkish language.

1 Like

option 2 seems the most logical.

3 options are the most logical, but in addition to this, we need to see how many kits in which pool, for example, how many in 30 days, how many in 360 days, how many in 720 days, how many omc kits in 30 days, it would be healthier if we can see this too.

1 Like

Our priority should be option 3. Plan B option 2

1 Like

In addition, it gives the wihitelist right for the projects on the omc network, I think it would be attractive if a certain number of 360 and 720 logs were locked.


i think option 3 with higher rates for 360 and 720 day stakers is most logical one. Maybe we can add it whitelist or seed sale rights for tokens which is generated on omchain.


If there is a quota, it won’t be a problem. For example, 1 month locking can stake up to 100k, 6 months locking can stake as much as 50k, 1 year locking 10k.

Opsion 3


Can we have an option that combines parts of 2 and 3?:

5 million max per year for 10 years, variable amounts based on lockup time, and no ability to withdraw early, not even with a penalty.

I also think 3 months should be the shortest stake option available. In my opinion staking is for those who believe in the long term success of the project… a month is not a very long time at all to be compensated.

I think it should be 3 months, 6 months, and a year. I also think the rewards should be greater depending on how long you lock up for - 3 months could be 4% apy, 6 months could be 12%, and a year 36%. In other words the increase is not linear… you get excess return to compensate you for your belief and trust in the project by staking longer.

I dont agree with this. Why penalize the people who bought lots of OMC by limiting how much we can stake?

Mathematically I don’t know how could we achieve this. Assuming all stakers stake for 720 days straight, we would have to limit APY with something like 8-9% to have 5M max issuance per year target.

If we adjust the rates based on that, then shorter durations would have even less income.

What we could try would be determining some constants for each period’s yield in terms of months.
For example;

  • 3 months lock would have a constant of 1,
  • 6 months would have 1.4
  • 12 months would have 2,
  • 24 months would have 3

With these constants each and every moment we would check total staked tokens in the smart contract and find their constants and distribute rewards according to that. An example;

  • Monthly cap of 420K tokens to be distributed, Stake pool has;

  • 10M tokens with constant 1 = 10M shares

  • 5M tokens with constant 1.4 = 7M shares

  • 15M tokens with constant 2 = 30M shares

  • 20M tokens with constant 3 = 60M shares

Total 50M tokens staked and 107M shares in the pool. According to the distribution cap, each share in the pool would get roughly 0.004 tokens per month. So according to that if a person staked 1000 OMC for 2 years, they would receive 1000 x 3 (constant) x 0.004 = 12 OMC per month, 144 OMC per year (14.4% APY).

On the other hand for the same given month, the 3 month staker would receive only 4 OMC per month, totaling 48 OMC per year (4.8% APY)

By adjusting the constants, we could have a fair distribution for both short and long term stakers. HOWEVER, what matters is the total emission because while some suggest that Option 3 is better for long term stakers, it yields 40% APY. So even if only 10M tokens are staked with that option, it’s already 4M tokens per year, 333K tokens unlocked per month. If 20M tokens are staked for 2 years, then we already exceed our 420K token/month cap.

Please let me know of your views on this table. Maybe we can postpone OIP-3 and have another discussion about the monthly unlockable token amount first? I don’t know.

Also the above method keeps in mind that if there are less tokens staked (for example 25M tokens) - then rewards are already doubled. That 14.4% APY becomes 28.8% APY simply because there are less people staking.

1 Like

You’re right on target with what I was thinking… thanks for sketching out the math! :joy:

That is correct that is would have to be a sliding scale/ multiplier that determines the reward based on the total staked. I’m not sure how much of an issue that would be - if staking was changed to a minimum of 3 months with no option to withdraw early would we still have 70 million stakers?

I guess my point is that we need:

A) certainty in the total stake emissions for the life of the program - whether it’s 5m/ yr for 10 years or something else is up to you

B) those who lock in a longer stake should be rewarded exponentially more than those who do short term stakes.

C) there should be no option to end the stake early. part of the risk you are being compensated for is not having access to your capital if you want/ need it

This is all assuming we even keep the program. Part of me thinks it should be ended and our total supply burned down to the 100m number as soon as possible - make Omchain about Omchain - not about staking, not about burning.

That may sting in the short term but I feel burning and staking has attracted some people interested in games instead of the tech.

I also think its a positive in terms of adoption - projects don’t have to worry about what effects staking and burning will have on their endeavours. The only investors left are those of us here for the tech.

The 1st one of the stake is definitely troublesome and the 3rd suggestion makes more sense. or 20m when the marketcap is 10m, and 50m when it’s 30m. Right now, stake cancellation will do more harm than good.

Direct 1 and 2 years will not be too many gris 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 everyone enters according to their target

1 Like

Osman’s proposal under 3 headings 1. If the proposal passes, we will have to start from scratch. He says that 80 percent price decrease seems inevitable, but it can be more because only because the stake is canceled 60 million will not pressurize, there will be sales from the market, they will buy from the bottom, this will have a litmus effect, it will be a big chaos. that would be very dangerous. Staking should definitely continue. The sale of what is obtained from the stake may have an impact for the moment, but as the projects come, the sales of the sales of the staking revenues are not even obvious as the projects come out in our network.

I am in favor of making the stake completely on the exchanges, after all, if this stake is made in both smart contracts and exchanges, if the investor will be rewarded in any way, then it should be done on the exchanges.

Staking on exchanges is both an event and we announce ourselves more.

1 Like

Okay folks, if there are no additions we will revise and send this to the voting app today hopefully. With only one addition - Combining method 2 and method 3 as new method.

So there will be 5 options;

  • Cancel stake
  • Stake for 10 years
  • Different lock periods with changing stake rates
  • Different lock periods with changing stake rates BUT FIXED monthly token amount distribution
  • Reject proposal completely

Please share your opinions on FIXED MONTHLY tokens, shall we unlock 500K tokens a month? Less? More?

I am personally looking for 4th option to pass - this way long term stakers will have chance to earn more while we are distributing fixed amount of tokens in a controllable way in the market.


500 k is a good option but we can do it for 5 years instead of 10 years and burn 25 of the 50 m allocated for staking