Rapid Research, Community Input

These are the submissions for Rapid Research Bounty, which are intended to bring value to Rocket Pool (either Node operator value, rETH value, RPL value, or some balance between these parties). They are in absolutely no order except what I could type before my draft poll deleted itself again.

Please vote for every submission that you think would bring value to Rocket Pool and should get further research focus and funding by the GMC.

This is also a great place to put down constructive criticism of good ideas that you feel can be improved. I don’t see great reason to comment that you dislike a particular idea, just don’t vote for them. This poll is non-binding regarding funding.

1 Like
0 voters
1 Like

Regarding “sckuzzle–Value accruing token”:

I’ve already talked with sckuzzle and the result is that the value of this is very dependent on where you’re tax liable.

Switzerland for example is divided into cantons (think U.S. states) and each canton decides the tax laws. Where I live, it says “The mining of cryptocurrencies by providing computing power for a fee by a natural person leads to taxable income from self-employment.”.

To get around this, the token I receive would have to accrue in value even if I did not do my work as a validator! Because as long as I get compensated for my work, I need to pay income tax. So then, how would you prevent me from simply shutting down my validator, leaving it to be punished over a long period and then finally force-exited at the minimum balance, while I still get the reward?

So, the tax laws are very different even within some countries. Which is why the narrative of this clearly has to be “maybe, under some circumstances, you might profit from this” and not “this is simply better and helps everyone”.

I also think the effort spent then should be rather on the low end since we can’t quite judge how many people will actually benefit.

1 Like

This is decidedly locale-specific, but I’ll note some things in its defense:

  • The ideal variant is optional - that would mean the worst case is what we have, and in some cases it’s better (aka, purely a net benefit, even if not a benefit to every user)
  • A set of people that would be impacted currently do better holding rETH, this idea would let them treat the options more similarly tax wise, which means the commision should keep the NO choice ahead
  • One possible way to handle the situation you mentioned is just force exiting aggressively for ppl using this option - eg at 31.95 (~a couple weeks downtime)

I’m not going to vote here in its current form because there are too many items to look at in detail. I wonder if it would be possible to consolidate some of the items into categories, or merged suggestions? For example number 1 and 3 seem very similar.

1 Like

I’m putting together a more readable summary of all the ideas as part of the review work. Some of them are similar and can be grouped, though many can’t. I’ll share it when I’m done working on it, probably in a few days.

I’ve now published this here.