Staking Discussion: Stakee Rewards

Staking Parameter: Stakee Fee Percentage


The stakee fee is a percentage of rewards that are paid out to the target of a pool, aka the stakee. As rewards flow in, the stakers have claim on these rewards. With the stakee fee parameter, the target of the pool would get a percentage of the rewards paid out to stakers. The thought behind this parameter for everyone using the system to earn RARE. Essentially, it is to distribute RARE to both sides of the staking system.

The current implementation allows the stakee to configure the value up to a maximum of 50%.


Nothing like an example to clearly demonstrate what I mean :slight_smile:

Say my pool, lordcharles.eth, has a stakee fee percentage of 10%. Whenever one of my stakers, say superrarejohn.eth, claims 100 RARE, I get 10 RARE as the target of the pool and John get’s 90 RARE for his reward.


  • Pros and Cons to having the stakee payout
  • Should this be a per pool level configuration or should it be global for the whole protocol
  • Is the percentage 50% limit too high or not high enough

In the alpha version where is this parameter? I have not seen this in the interface.

1 Like

We didn’t expose it for configuration given constraints on dev resources for getting MVP live.

1 Like

Here are my thoughts on this parameter:

The pros are outlined in the motivation section of this post. It gives everyone involved with the rarity pool a method for receiving RARE.

The con I see lies in the added complexity of evaluating whether to stake into a pool. I now have to consider what the stakee percentage is as well as all the other factors that would have me decide to stake on pool.

This is mitigated if the value is set at a global level and defined by the protocol (meaning all pools have the same stakee percentage). This is my favorite option for this as I do feel that even if the amount is very small that the stakee receives, it’s still good to be distributing RARE to the participants in the network.

Curios to get other’s thoughts:
@Keegan @koloz @Brennan @rohit @SuperRareJohn @perkins @RareKoko

1 Like

Just challenging the premise a little bit. One of my first thoughts is that the goal here is also achieved by the pool target also just staking in their pool like everyone else.

The difference above with this feature- is they are granted an outsized reward if their pool is very large.

We also keep in mind that the pool target is also the seller in that same transaction. So they are also getting 85-90% of the sale amount too. They aren’t exactly being left in the dust.

Do they need this at all? If so, i’d keep it low: 5% or less. I think we want to maximize the attractiveness of being a staker in a pool.


These are great points!

One of my first thoughts is that the goal here is also achieved by the pool target also just staking in their pool like everyone else.

Yeah I’ve toyed with this argument too. However, I do see a value where some who is doing well in sales who doesn’t have RARE is distributed RARE without needing to take action. The sales will often not be RARE so this is more of a way to get RARE in the hands of participants in the network.

I think this is a cool idea, but I agree with Keegan 50% is high. I would lean towards something small like 1-10%.

What I like about this feature is that it’s a way for everyone RARE, and in this model an artist or collector wouldn’t even need any RARE to get started because they’d be earning some via sales.

That’s a great point though @Keegan the best way earn RARE would be to stake in other pools.

1 Like

I think let the artist decide but allow 0% if they want so they can encourage stakers
A lot of artists will be more interested in boosting their visibility than earning a few rare.


I think a per-pool variable stakee parameter would be best, at least for the early stages of the staking project . This way the eco-system of stakers and stakees can play with multiple pool sizes and configurations and ideally let the protocol evolve or mutate to more of a final equilibrium. Almost by it be ‘darwinian’ in a way.

I think without any prior simulation/evidence of multiple pool sizes and stakee parameters configurations setting a global value may limit the staking protocols full potential.


It has to be a per-pool parameter.

Another completely different to approach to this is: how about letting the stakers decide who get their pie of the reward from the pool?

Forget a stakee reward, the staker get 100% of the reward but get to decide on whether they want to distribute their reward to:

  1. Self
  2. Target (Stakee)
  3. Protocol Guild/Gitcoin/Giveth/etc.
  4. BURN IT!

In most scenarios, the stakee is already benefiting from the spotlight no? Let the staker decide if they want to share the love in a non-normative way (not self)


I think this is super interesting. However, building this in at the protocol level may increase complexity when the staker could just chose to transfer any funds they claim to the desired addresses (though this would cost gas)

Interesting point, this could be accomplished easily by allowing the staker to setup an alternative payout address to the address that they current have rewards paid to.

1 Like