Greenfield Blockchain Validator Incentivisation Discussion

The BNB Greenfield Blockchain is Proof-of-stake based on Tendermint;

In this case, using the basic Tendermint staking and incentivization module would work fine. A good approach would be to keep an APY consistent or lower than the one on BNB Chain Validators (BNB Chain | Binance Staking | Binance Swap).

The logic here would be not to create a significant shift of liquidity from BNB chain validators to Greenfield, because if BNB Greenfield has higher delegation rewards, the security of the BNB chain might be compromised.

A capped model would work as well. If you assume the target is to have 1M BNB tokens moved to Greenfield for staking activity, then you would give an APY of 3% for 1M BNB tokens, below 1m BNB tokens, the APY would be higher, thus attracting delegators from BNB Chain. Above 1M BNB staked tokens the APY would decrease, so you won’t have any financiary motivation to stake on Greenfield after that threshold.

Having this approach will balance the tokens that would go for staking on Greenfield, and you can easily balance the security between Greenfield and BNB chain validators.

Curious to see the team’s perspective and the community’s feedback.

Where get fucet? My full node already syncd

I think the stable APR is reasonably for validator running as a business.

I generally feel 1M is too much, at least for the early days.

Greenfield is a chain focusing on data storage, instead of DeFi. Most of the utility of BNB is for fees and stakes. 1M BNB is 300M+. No need for so many fees in the beginning.

The 1M was just an example, not neccesarly something that I was suggesting. The cap is something that the BNB team can establish based on the chain needs.

Great question regarding the incentivization. Has it usually is the main KPI a validator is looking at.

It is important to maintain a balance between BNB Greenfield and the BSC Validators to ensure the security and stability of both networks. The dynamic APY model (as rewards are based on the tx fee) will directly link validator rewards to network activity. This means that the more activity on Greenfield, the higher the rewards for validators, and vice versa.

Given the direct integration between Greenfield and BSC, a high activity level on Greenfield should also result in an even higher activity on BSC. Consequently, the rewards pool on BSC will always be higher than Greenfield, preventing a significant liquidity shift from BNB Chain Validators to Greenfield Validators and maintaining the security of both networks.

By relying on the dynamic APY model and the direct integration between Greenfield and BSC, the project can ensure that both networks maintain a balanced ecosystem and neither becomes compromised due to a disproportionate allocation of resources. Gathering the community’s feedback on this approach would still be beneficial to guarantee alignment.

Will there be any lending plan for validators?

As a technical guy, it is hard to do the financial raise for 1M token

validators don’t have to self-stake 1M BNBs. it’s 2000 BNB AFAIK and is deliberately much lower than on BSC as Greenfield is not DeFi centric network and doesn’t have the same sensitivity as BSC.