# RPIP-49 Tokenomics Rework Update 2 - Sentiment Poll **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance\ **Tags:** tokenomics-rework\ **Created:** [23 July 2024 14:51 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136 "2024-07-23T14:51:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![LongForWisdom](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/longforwisdom/32/743_2.png) [@LongForWisdom](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/LongForWisdom)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 14:51 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/1 "2024-07-23T14:51:18Z")
Hi all, we’re here again to share an update about the tokenomics rework. Related threads on the topic can be found [here](https://dao.rocketpool.net/tag/tokenomics-rework). ## Where are we at? The exciting news is that we’re at a stage where we feel comfortable to start the official governance process on the RPIP-49 tokenomics rework. This has come after a period of outreach, seeking feedback from stakeholders, discussing alternative directions, and polishing the RPIP specifications. More information on this proposal can be found at [rpl.rehab](https://rpl.rehab). This rework includes an informational overview in RPIP-49 as well as a number of RPIPs (42-47, 59, 60) used to specify the various aspects. ### Sentiment Poll The headline item here is that we’ve posted a sentiment poll below where you vote on whether to move the RPIP-49 tokenomics rework to a snapshot vote. The snapshot vote would be a vote on the tokenomics rework package as a whole. This means you will be voting on the direction and general contents of the rework, and the specific contents of the included RPIPs as written. However, we think it’s valuable to keep the RPIPs in a Living state rather than Finalized at this time. This will provide the flexibility to make **minor** adjustments in response to any issues discovered by the core team during implementation. There are several [specific items](https://rpips.rocketpool.net/RPIPs/RPIP-49#still-to-ratify-prior-to-saturn-1) we are intentionally leaving flexible at this time, these items will be ratified prior to the launch of Saturn 1. They are: - **Saturn 2 Surplus Share Strategy** - Determine how to manage surplus share in Saturn 2: Buy+Burn, Buy+LP, or higher voter\_share? - **Deposit Strategy** - A small amount of UX and gas research to help determine if we want a 2TX or 3TX deposit strategy for validator creation - **Penalty System** - Research and specify a MEV theft detection and penalizing system - **Security Council NO commission changes** - Determine when and how the council should use their limited power to change no\_commission. We foresee at least 2 follow-on votes - one for Surplus Share strategy and one to ratify the final states of the RPIPs. The other items on the list may be bundled with the ratification or get their own votes. ### 1kx proposal 1kx has proposed an alternative direction, which retains the RPL collateral requirement and introduces delegated staking. You can read the details of their proposal [here](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/1kx-tokenomics-proposal/3119). Our position on this is that while some of the contents of the 1kx proposal are complementary, the core elements are not compatible with the RPIP-49 rework. Note that this proposal doesn’t currently have specifications (RPIPs) to vote on. This is normal – all proposals have a design phase that precedes specifications. Voters should vote to oppose moving to snapshot if they prefer the direction outlined in the 1kx proposal. ### ib1gymnast proposal Ib1gymnast has also proposed an alternative direction, which reduces the RPL bond requirement, uses smaller ETH bonds and maintains the 14% commission. You can read the details of their proposal [here](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/an-alternative-and-simple-tokenomics-proposal/3130). Note that this proposal doesn’t currently have specifications (RPIPs) to vote on. This is normal – all proposals have a design phase that precedes specifications. Voters should vote to oppose moving to snapshot if they prefer the direction outlined in the ib1gymnast proposal. ## How can you help us? Please read through at least the [intro explainers](https://rpips.rocketpool.net/tokenomics-2024). Reading more and/or asking questions is highly encouraged! Then, make an informed vote on the future of Rocket Pool! Thanks from all the authors and contributors (including but not limited to @Valdorff @samus @LongForWisdom @knoshua @sckuzzle) * * * ## RPIP-49 Rework Sentiment Poll **This poll will lead to a snapshot vote if it shows promising community sentiment after 14 days.** _Poll ([view on site](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/1))_ * * * > **LFW’s Metagovernance Comments** > > You can safely ignore this if you just care about tokenomics stuff and aren’t that interested in how governance works. > > We spent a few days debating and going back and forth on the wording around this forum post, and the format of the sentiment vote. It’s a reasonably complex governance situation because there are related proposals at different points in their life cycles. Here are some disordered thoughts about how we ended up with the above and how this played out. > > (Note these are all LFW thoughts, and not tokenomics core-contributors thoughts) > > - RPIP-4 is pretty ambiguous, and this makes it very hard to communicate clear outcomes to voters. I think in an ideal world, I would be able to say ‘a majority counts as promising sentiment’ and that could head-off contention later. Others disagree that this is good, given lack of referee and abusability of forum polling. > - There isn’t really a referee for this process, and there probably should be. Defacto it’s Langers because he gates access to snapshot voting. I guess it’s up to Langers if whatever result we end up with counts as promising community sentiment. > - There’s an argument that all RPIP-4 is meant to do is prevent spam, and the threshold for promising sentiment should be very low. I’m unsure how I feel about this. > - By any reasonable metric, it feels like this proposal meets the requirement for promising community sentiment even prior to a vote (due to engagement with the proposal, contributions, feedback, previous sentiment votes, etc). It would take a really extreme negative outcome to convince me that this doesn’t hit that bar. > - If you take the above to be true, then this is just a formality and arguably we should have just skipped to snapshot. > - Lots of the debate was around whether to have options to explicitly allow voting for a delay (either of explicit length, or just ‘some time’.) I’m unsure how I personally feel about this as well. In the end, if people want a delay they can comment and vote against. > - Delay seems costly. Val felt it was costly on a general level. I feel it’s costly on a morale level for those involved in the rework. Langers commented that a delay of more than six weeks would start to negatively impact development. > - Ultimately, I don’t think the authors want to delay, and this is the authors sentiment poll. I don’t think authors need to bend over backwards to accommodate an outcome that they don’t want. It’s enough that voters are able to express ‘not this.’ Which they can both here and on snapshot if it proceeds. ---
**Author:** ![waqwaqattack](https://dao.rocketpool.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/45deac/32.png) [@waqwaqattack](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/waqwaqattack)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 15:12 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/2 "2024-07-23T15:12:13Z")
This vote has been a long time coming, and I’m glad we’re moving forward. I think this rework is going to be wonderful for Rocket Pool, and I’m excited about what’s going to come. ---
**Author:** ![leighm.eth](https://dao.rocketpool.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/41988e/32.png) [@leighm.eth](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/leighm.eth)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 15:27 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/3 "2024-07-23T15:27:39Z")
I’m excited to finally get this rework moving! I’m very thankful for all the giga brains at RP to make this possible. ---
**Author:** ![cat5bread](https://dao.rocketpool.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@cat5bread](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/cat5bread)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 15:28 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/4 "2024-07-23T15:28:13Z")
A huge thank you to all the members of the community and team that have contributed towards progressing tokenomics discussions and proposals up to this point. Very excited for hopefully oranger pastures as we continue to shape the protocol for the better. ---
**Author:** ![ramana](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/ramana/32/100_2.png) [@ramana](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/ramana)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 16:15 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/5 "2024-07-23T16:15:02Z")
Congratulations to all involved in getting RPIP-49 developed to this point. ---
**Author:** ![Mig21](https://dao.rocketpool.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mig21](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/Mig21)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 16:16 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/6 "2024-07-23T16:16:52Z")
the community here have done a lot of work, this is the right direction a DAO should go, tokenomics is a fundamental point as scale for the protocol. let’s just hope will be in before 2054 ---
**Author:** ![NeverAnIsland](https://dao.rocketpool.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/ad7895/32.png) [@NeverAnIsland](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/NeverAnIsland)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 16:46 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/7 "2024-07-23T16:46:39Z")
It’s great I’ve lived to see this day! Huge thanks to everyone who contributed to this milestone. 🧡 ---
**Author:** ![yorickdowne](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/yorickdowne/32/33_2.png) [@yorickdowne](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/yorickdowne)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 16:48 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/8 "2024-07-23T16:48:43Z")
It’d be helpful to identify “we” in the opening of this post. If only for posterity and those new to the discussion. I want to see RocketPool succeed, and that means doing something about the NO bottleneck as well as capturing some value for RPL. I don’t know the problem that “people don’t want to run servers” (Moxie Marlinspike) can be overcome: But if we’re saying there’s at least enough to keep RocketPool on a healthy path, then these interlinked proposals improve upon the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![Valdorff](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/valdorff/32/319_2.png) [@Valdorff](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/Valdorff)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 17:04 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/9 "2024-07-23T17:04:12Z")
> [@yorickdowne](#): > > It’d be helpful to identify “we” in the opening of this post. If only for posterity and those new to the discussion. This is roughly “the authors and contributors”, and is a bit of an amorphous blob. The primary set skewing “very recently active” might be like @Valdorff @samus @LongForWisdom @knoshua @sckuzzle @ramana. ---
**Author:** ![LongForWisdom](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/longforwisdom/32/743_2.png) [@LongForWisdom](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/LongForWisdom)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 17:59 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/10 "2024-07-23T17:59:55Z")
I’ve added the people whose sign-off I asked for to the original post (which is roughly the core group at the current time). Apologies for the omission. As Val said, it’s pretty nebulous who is core and who isn’t, and in practice this hasn’t really been a huge thing, people just contribute as they want. ---
**Author:** ![emp2b3](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/emp2b3/32/1283_2.png) [@emp2b3](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/emp2b3)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 18:03 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/11 "2024-07-23T18:03:31Z")
For someone that goes days without visiting Discord sometimes and isn’t too active on the forum, I have tried to follow the tokenomics rework as closely as possible (shout-out to Waq and Pat for helping make that a bit easier). Despite being quite underwater in terms of my RPL investment and having felt like exiting some minipools was a better option than continuing to try to top up RPL each month in order to continue to earn rewards, I still am supportive of the protocol and think it and rETH are a major benefit to the ethereum ecosystem. I am thankful to the community members that came together to help address the tokenomics in the face of protocol stagnation and pessimistic sentiment. I am voting in favor of moving forward with the snapshot. I do appreciate the efforts of 1kx and ib1gymnast in working on alternative proposals and hope that we can pull the best ideas into continuing improvements to the protocol. ---
**Author:** ![haloooloolo](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/haloooloolo/32/1155_2.png) [@haloooloolo](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/haloooloolo)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 18:48 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/12 "2024-07-23T18:48:20Z")
It’s been a long ride, but glad we got here. Thank you to everyone who’s contributed and fingers crossed it helps Rocket Pool tap into more of its potential. ---
**Author:** ![phils.eth](https://dao.rocketpool.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/87869e/32.png) [@phils.eth](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/phils.eth)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 19:10 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/13 "2024-07-23T19:10:01Z")
Isn’t there a risk that many ppl will sell their RPL off? ---
**Author:** ![Bawcey](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/bawcey/32/212_2.png) [@Bawcey](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/Bawcey)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 19:10 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/14 "2024-07-23T19:10:35Z")
Thank you to all the sers and shers 🫡 ---
**Author:** ![samus](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/samus/32/839_2.png) [@samus](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/samus)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 22:58 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/16 "2024-07-23T22:58:31Z")
The new value capture mechanism should help ensure there is financial incentive to hold (and stake) RPL. The rework also enables growth and improves capital efficiency, which helps the token’s fundamentals by bringing more value to the same supply of RPL. ---
**Author:** ![ethereanbull](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/ethereanbull/32/672_2.png) [@ethereanbull](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/ethereanbull)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 23:19 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/17 "2024-07-23T23:19:19Z")
I voted no, because the only information I have seen shows the benefits and biases towards moving forward. Where is the educated counter argument to moving forward, until I see one, voting is pointless. ---
**Author:** ![drdoofus](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/drdoofus/32/403_2.png) [@drdoofus](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/drdoofus)\ **Post date:** [23 July 2024 23:40 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/18 "2024-07-23T23:40:13Z")
The info you seek is linked to in the description above ---
**Author:** ![ken](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/ken/32/180_2.png) [@ken](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/ken)\ **Post date:** [24 July 2024 00:31 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/19 "2024-07-24T00:31:40Z")
Glad to see this finally getting to this stage. Looking forward to the next steps. (Not going to lie I’m also here for a POAP! as well) ---
**Author:** ![quietstaker](https://dao.rocketpool.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/q/919ad9/32.png) [@quietstaker](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/quietstaker)\ **Post date:** [24 July 2024 04:11 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/20 "2024-07-24T04:11:06Z")
1st time creating an account just to vote but this proposal excites me and I am looking forward to the day it would be implemented. ---
**Author:** ![RocketAdvocate](https://dao.rocketpool.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@RocketAdvocate](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/RocketAdvocate)\ **Post date:** [24 July 2024 05:27 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136/21 "2024-07-24T05:27:25Z")
Lots of work and care went into this. So happy to see it moving to the next phase! [Next page](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/rpip-49-tokenomics-rework-update-2-sentiment-poll/3136.md?page=2)