Vortex Yield Optimization | Single vs. Multi-Portal Models | #MentalMining

The best model would be the single portal staking, because I could choose to stake in 1, or I could split my xio and farm all of them. So I could choose to have the "one for all" or multiple staking portals. I like this kind of freedom. It would be awesome if the platform could handle a feeless-gasless migration of my xio tokens from one vortex to another. For example I could farm aqua+flash for a week, and move my staking power to another portal the next week, without an onchain transaction... That would be awesome indeed. 

A button to automatically split my xio tokens between the chosen portals/vortex would be nice as well

As both of these options are fine for me, i believe every person would like to earn a bigger amount of a specific coin than others. So making him choose on which portal he chooses to go is a better choice.As for earning multiple currencies,at once, that is also something very awesome and i would love to experience that.The gas fees problem aren't that much of an issue if blockzero decides to expand to new networks than eth only.There are many good projects out there.Lots of choices some of whom were recommended here.

I prefer the multiportal option. It will help with fees significantly. Also a person can simulate the single portal by splitting the XIO they stake into different groups. It also gives people more options. 

The disadvantage is that if there is one token with high yield. People might choose to stake for it then immediately dump it to get the token they want. Hence no one will stake for the other tokens. 

Still I think the multi portal option is better. 

Also if you @Zachary Dash  make the other video tomorrow could you talk about Flash liquidity on Uniswap?

I am totally in favour of having a single vortex instead of multiple because:

1. Simplicity: I guess the most important arguement here is the simplicity of the "one stake for multiple yields" model. People get really confused when you give them a lot of choices.
2. Vetting the projects: Most people will not have the capacity or time to do the vetting of new projects to understand the long term value of the projects and hence wont stake for them if they were alone. In a single vortex model, people will however realize its value over time.

The issue with gas definitely needs to be addressed though as that could be a huge bummer. I would think a layer 2 claim would help or maybe allow to claim few of all the tokens(and hence reduce gas costs).

XID-6CCb5

Single Portal Model   works  for me  simpler the better for profit  is important in this matter  tobe able to stake amounts that is worth your time of thought   the quicker I understand the better less gates to open and close...

I believe I would also have to go with a single portal system. The possibility of staking multiple tokens with decreased APY per cent is still attractive if I can also choose to stake all my tokens in one portal for a higher APY.

I think this plays directly into the fact that there will be times when a person will want to stake their entire investment into one asset in order to maximise theIs net gain on that asset due to time or market conditions. This would also leave the option to spread it out if the market was steady and even and not the middle of a bear/bull market scenario.

 Furthermore, I also believe that this will spread it more evenly for an experienced investor Or someone that has just come into the crypto investing space.This also ties directly into the gass fees needed to pay for both the stakes and unstated to reclaim their assets at the end.

XID - 425f

To clarify with the single portal model i earn multiple tokens whilst with the multiple portal model i earn the token i choose. 

Single Portal Model

If with the single portal model i could do one transaction and claim the multiple  token i might have choose it. The multiple transaction to claim plus reduce apy per token does not look attractive.

Multiple Portal Model

With the multiple portal model i have the freedom to choose which token i want to earn at its respective apy plus i could split my xio and participate in the portal of my choice.

Verdict

I choose multiple portal model.

What originally attracted me to the XLP program, which is one major factor of what hooked me permanently into XIO, was the simple "set it and forget it" approach. 

I would strongly prefer we replicate the "Set it and forget it" and use a single portal model. This way, again, I could simply stake my XIO into 1 place, earn all possible tokens, and not have to worry about micromanaging which specific tokens I earn over time.  

As someone else said above, the multiple portal model gives too many choices, it will be choice overload.  The human brain can only handle 5-7 choices at most before it starts making bad decisions from  information overload, and causes people to get stressed out. "Am I making the right choice?". 

As a staker, it becomes a huge pain to try to manage more than a few portals being staked in to at the same time. 

'One portal' would have my preference, I like the fact that I am getting a plethora of different projects, having to choose a specific project will focus on what I don't have instead of what I have. The gas fees are an issue, but I do believe that Eth will be able to scale to a lot lower fees, and your argument that you can choose which coin to claim is also very valid. 

Multi on L1, Single on L2.

I'm surprised at the responses here in favour of a single portal earning multiple tokens. It simply doesn't work on L1. It may work for whales but I don't think people here realise how much gas will eat into their yield. You could show the real APY figure by subtracting four gas transactions at current gas price and then showing the annual percentage with gas taken into account, but that might even be negative yield at high gas times (unless you're a whale). The majority deserves a piece of the treasury too.
 
I brought up the yield dollar on TG last week for the same reason, I doubt the efficacy of anything gas intensive on L1, it won’t work for years. And I would definitely not stake in the hopes that sometime time down the line four gas txs won't cost as much. 

This is not a choice of preference, this is having a working product or not having a working product. Let the people decide what they want to stake for, for L1 it's the only way.

@Zachary Dash  just thought of something but i dont have the background to think if that is possible.
Would you be able to make something like a single portal staking where the staker adjusts its most preferable tokens and the system will then give him better return on them? For example lets say we get rewarded AQUA,FLASH,XIO,UMA and there s a process through staking where we are asked to pick 2 of them as favorites' or put numbers on them, number 1 being the favorite and so on. That way, lets say if some people prefer more FLASH and others AQUA then the system will distribute the rewards according to their preferences, and have a big portion of their XIO staked focused more on FLASH and AQUA thus rewarding them more. Then there will be people where will choose XIO and UMA for example as favorites so they are being rewarded more of them. Would this create somehow a balance and avoid the very low fixed APY's? Would it be possible? Well it will be obvious that more people might choose certain projects thus again lowering the APY. For example everyone might choose XIO so the APY for it will be very small comparing to others. Well this might then motive people to go and restake choosing another as their favorite and getting more in return. 

We could also, let's say, have a single portal staking process with 12 tokens and each staker might choose beforehand 4-5 of them  (as being favorite) to start earning them simultaneously. 

What I am thinking is creating a single portal staking process but with the option to choose favorite tokens and earn more by them. Many people will have different tokens as their favorites so more rewards for the rest choosing other coins. I know i might sound a bit confusing.Hope u get it

I believe that one important feature that Blockzero as a whole should have and provide is flexibility and multiple options. I don't know if that's possible or more difficult to be done, but why not just have both options available? If someone wants to stake all XIO to earn all the tokens that the Vortex has, that's great, and if someone else wants to go with the multi-portal option and choose what they want to stake, that's fine as well. Giving options and letting people choose would be a great advantage for Blockzero, but again, I'm not a developer so I don't know the work that is required for something like this to be done. Finally, the gas is an issue, but I hope with Optimism/L2 or other solutions it will be fixed and lower the fees in the next 2 months. 

I prefer "Multi Portal" , because I can choose, and it has the "One Portal" option included (I can still stake my XIo for all these other projects, but I will have to make more action). For the downside you could limit the stake for one project es let's say it would be possible to Stake XIo for Only 100k Uma, if this Uma is filled you can only stake for other projects or wait till will be possible.So you limiting stake in one project will force to Stake another project. I I little bit harsh but ce LA vie 

I would prefer the possibility of both options for all the reasons stated above by others. I also think it might depend which tokens were available. 
 

Would it be possible to have a swap feature inside the portal or vortex where if you didn’t want one or more of the tokens you’d earned, you could swap them for something you did want?  Could a peer to peer swap work?  eg  You staked XIO for A, B, C and D tokens and Bob staked for E, F, G and H tokens.  You decide to keep A and C tokens but don’t really want B and D. You set up a swap with Bob for his F and G tokens in exchange for your B and D tokens then you claim A, C, F and G and Bob claims B D, E and H. 
 

well i think the One portal choice will be perfect instead of multi having to choose a specific project will focus on what I don't have instead of what I have. The gas fees are an issue

I'm in favor of the Single Portal option, even on Layer 1, and even before ETH 2.0. 

For me, the purpose of this aspect of The Vortex is to get exposure to the entire ecosystem of Blockzero, not just one or a couple of projects. 

I get the whole "gas fee" point, but I see the ecosystem exposure being worth more than that gas in the long run. The fact that if I want to claim, I don't have to claim everything, but only claim specific ones allows people to minimize the gas involved. 

To help with gas, I wonder if it's possible to have a transaction type that is some sort of "community claim". So I would tell the Vortex I'd like to claim in the next "community claim" (which occurs every month?) and The Vortex uses multi-send to all Community Claim participants to lower the overall gas involved? Perhaps in this model, the Vortex pays the gas itself. 

XID-6271d

I would think due to simplicity having one stop shop is great. Plus supporting all the projects helps propell them faster into maturity when everyone is on board. Not everyone is going to have time to reasearch each tokenomic and some new projects just might not be given a fair go to develop.

I would strongly support the multi-portal, here is why:

I am rather picky when choosing the projects I want to invest in. That is also advice I give any newbies in crypto. With too many investments in too many projects, you inevitably lose control. Also, should one project really skyrocket and you have 2% allocated instead of 10% - ouch!

 Investing XIO once and getting yield in for example 12 projects, I may only be interested in half of the projects.

Also, should I invest $100 of XIO with 3% yield, then I get $3 worth for each project. That is probably lower than gas fees I would pay to claim the yield.

This is of course relative. If I invested $1000, then the 3% would be $30 in a project, that should cover the fees. But still, in comparison to 36% in a project I am in favor of, that is a huge difference.

Also, I know Blockzero wants to support all the projects, but if there are projects no one (or only few) invests in, that may be a form of feedback. The project team can stop and think - why are other projects more popular and attract more investors? What changes should we make? That would lead to making changes and creating a better project.

Regarding mind or mental mining - yeah, that word expression seems a bit weird. Governance mining sounds better:-)

Awesome question Dash, thx again for including us in the discussion, love being part of Blockzero community!

I would prefer mutibal options to stake and an option to keep it stacked indefinitely until I remove it.

The gas price is what has changed my behavior towards purchasing and staking more often.

If you can be best in class in the way you can offer low cost gas transactions, you would be the best option in my opinion. 

Seems like the best option would be one general APY pool (let's say 40% for better counting), and I can choose which tokens I want to earn after staking, and pool divide by a number of chosen tokens. Like if I choose 4 I get 10% APY for each. 

XID-296D3

This is pretty hard to decide. On the one hand diversification will help grow a portfolio but high fees are a killer. On the other hand low fees and higher risk as all your eggs are in one basket. I think I would like the option to earn all tokens but be able to withdraw them either on their own or all at once. I don't really like the idea of single vaults as bots will play havok trying to maximise apy and may lead to flash attacks.

The single vortex option but with further functionality. 

I agree completely with @steve.eth in regards to the information overload involved with multiple staking, and with @サムSam [XID-5545]  with his comments that BZ staking is about getting exposure to a plethora of well vetted projects.

How I think the single vortex model could be improved:

Reduce fees:

• Batch transactions to reduce gas fees. Or community claim, as @サムSam [XID-5545] discussed!
• Using Flashbots technology to avoid frontrunning with gas fees:

https://crucible.alchemist.wtf/

Improve utility/gamification:

• Could users improve their stake rewards by choosing to lock in their staked XIO for a period of time? "Up to x2 on your staking for locking up to 360 days" or something?
• Choosing your stake allocation by %. Example, staking XIO to get:
  • 10% of staking rewards in AQUA
  • 80% in FLASH
  • 10% in UMA
• Be able to lock in or shift this allocation depending on whether you stake for a locked period of time or flexibly.

Thanks!

While the single portal that earns multiple tokens sounds intriguing, I'm pretty sure that no one will want to pay gas to unstake more tokens while we're on Ethereum... This model should be kept for L2, and for now we should keep it simple, stick with the multi portal, see how it works and then improve it/modify it to include the single portal.

Another interesting idea related to a mix between the multi/single portals would be the ability to exchange the tokens between them while they're in the vortex. Imagine that you have token X, Y and Z, and you're only interested in the Y token. In this scenario you could exchange X and Z for Y inside the vortex (this would work best on L2, to reduce the fees) and then you're withdrawing more Y tokens instead of all three of them.

Having the ability to choose&mix how you want to earn tokens is also a strong point of the Vortex that can be easily marketed in the right conditions... This should be very useful, especially since the one thing we always lacked is proper marketing.

I'm in for the single portal, seems like a more simple option and that will grant access to the whole ecosystem at once. As I'm not really involved in community so far (trying to be now!), that is certainly the best option for me.

On top of the information overload mentioned above with the multi-portals, having to keep checking back to see if there are new tokens and if I'd want to stake for them now would be problematic.

And, of course, some new features to reduce gas fees, like the community claim above, would be more than welcome and just make the experience even more strait forward.

My vote is for multi portal due to

1. gas fees > even if they drop > it will still be 12x for each of the diversified tokens withdrawal
2. higher apy > ultimately it's better to earn 1 token each day > than 0.14 token of 12 different projects
3. focusing and pledging your support to one token for future gains.