Milestone 2 Funding Request for Motif: Polkadot Proactive Staking Assistance
Hola, frens!
Thank you for the feedback; we have used it to refine our vision for Motif and majorly updated the proposal. (Full updated proposal for Milestone 2)
Key Points:
- We removed all options related to the Motif App interface and related data flows/back.
- We removed plans for personal accounts and related back/front/integrations.
- We focused on tools for delivering information to users through email and Telegram.
- We retained plans for implementing risk notifications (through user-friendly channels like Telegram).
- We kept plans for recommendation systems to present problems and provide solutions immediately.
- This allowed us to reduce the initial proposal cost by ~5 times.
- New. We have added basic marketing support (based on community feedback and current cases).
In our view, this approach will improve the staking user experience and satisfaction and create a communication channel between the ecosystem and stakers. We extend our gratitude (and love!) to Leemo, Phunky, Birdo, Crane, Aleksandar, Ryan, Mork, Sourabh, Bira, Jay, Derek, Saxemberg frens and Giotto for their feedback on the first iteration of the Motif Milestone 2 proposal. Their insights have been immensely helpful in refining our product concept.
Disclaimer: While we rely heavily on feedback from the community, nobody but the Motif Team should be considered affiliated with the project. This proposal only reflects our own vision, ideas and interpretation of the said feedback.
The essential components of the system are operational now at app.motif.network. A prototype of the Motif: Staking Assistant bot has also been implemented.
Overview.
Motif is a smart staking support system designed to simplify and optimize the staking process in Polkadot's NPoS system. Our primary objective is to make staking more accessible and profitable for nominators through advanced data analysis and proactive assistance.
Context:
Staking in Polkadot’s NPoS is currently highly complex, with high dropout rates among nominators and less stability than desired. Our initial research conducted prior to Milestone 1 showed that a group of nominators consistently achieves the highest APY, highlighting an opportunity for others to improve their staking strategies. Moreover, the current decentralized setup requires users to be proactive in monitoring their stakes, which is highly time-consuming and demands high level of expertise.
- Complexity in Staking: The NPoS system is complex and challenging for many users, leading to high dropout rates among nominators.
- Need for Proactive Monitoring: Nominators must actively monitor their stakes, requiring substantial time and expertise.
- Dynamic System: The fluctuating nature of validator commissions and staking conditions demands constant oversight, risking reduced profitability and engagement.
- ‘Bloatware’ - Keeping users engaged on ‘yet another’ standalone platform is now outstandingly difficult if at all possible.
Solutions (Full Proposal)
- Collecting, processing, and refining raw onchain data into a user-friendly format.
- Providing guidance and showcasing optimal staking strategies in a conversational form through our ChatBot, which is connected to and operates based on curated onchain data.
- Utilizing advanced algorithms to provide preemptive risk analysis, relevant updates AND solutions for problems Nominators may run into.
- Leveraging a platform already native to most users in the ecosystem as the primary channel for interacting with users. Focusing on Telegram chatbot as primary interaction channel allows users to monitor their stake and ensure that their stakes remain profitable without the need to constantly navigate various platforms.
- Setting up Notifications for Nominators: Since staking in Polkadot’s NPoS requires proactive oversight, setting up Notifications for important onchain events and possible issues with staking would be highly beneficial and help prevent dropouts and loss.
Structure
Milestone 2 focuses on enhancing the Motif platform with several key components:
- Nominator Leaderboard: This feature provides detailed insights into top-performing nominators, highlighting their strategies, rewards, and chosen validators. It helps users identify successful patterns and optimize their staking behavior.
- Telegram Bot: The bot will be upgraded to offer real-time notifications, predictive advice, and personalized validator recommendations. This allows users to receive critical information without needing to actively monitor multiple platforms.
- Backend Infrastructure Improvements: We will refine our data processing and storage systems to ensure high accuracy and reliability. This includes developing advanced ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) procedures, improving caching mechanisms, and enhancing our data models.
Test-drive our bot
Curious to see how it works? Dive into the Motif Alpha Telegram chat-bot to get your staking data now: https://t.me/MotifNetwork_bot *Note: The bot is in the alpha single-thread version, so please be patient with it!
We invite the community to try out the Motif app Alpha and share your feedback. Together, we can create a more efficient and decentralized staking ecosystem. For details, please refer to the full Milestone 2 proposal document. Thank you for your support!
Contact Us:
- Website: Motif Network
- Telegram: Motif Network Bot
- @motifnetwork:matrix.org
- Telegram: @NikNovo
- Email: nik@motif.network
Comments (1)
Comments (1)
Hello, Thank you for reflecting on the feedback provided by many entities in the community. There is one little issue we have with the whole approach. While tooling for nominators is always a good to have, selection platforms have always created biases and several issues that tend to favor certain parties over the others. We can see this on certain open software tools as well, so it's not always limited to selection platforms and / or wallets. To explain this issue we can take the stakingrewards.com site as an example which is probably the most used selection platform on the Cosmos ecosystem. They have promoted validation providers as well as a non-random way to display validators which obviously favors certain parties over the others. They are currently very integrated with Mintscan (Subscan equivalent on Cosmos). so it's a pay to play scenario for Cosmos validating entities. How can we avoid this precise scenario as well as others not explained here but also related to this (something like "verified badges" or further recommendations) so that we can have a more or less balanced tool. Another item we want to highlight is the absence of SEO mentions on the proposal. Without this, any website, app or tool will be lost in the internet without recourse to be found natively or through the search engines. Why is this important. So that we don't get the same Cosmos problems that create the unbalanced selection described on the V1 "showing that around 19,600 addresses are currently bonded without rewards" which can be "fixed' by further concentrating liquidity away from small validators and thus reducing Polkadot's Nakamoto index and more importantly to not favor the same institutions over and over again. Looking forward to your replies.
Hello, Thank you for reflecting on the feedback provided by many entities in the community. There is one little issue we have with the whole approach. While tooling for nominators is always a good to have, selection platforms have always created biases and several issues that tend to favor certain parties over the others. We can see this on certain open software tools as well, so it's not always limited to selection platforms and / or wallets. To explain this issue we can take the stakingrewards.com site as an example which is probably the most used selection platform on the Cosmos ecosystem. They have promoted validation providers as well as a non-random way to display validators which obviously favors certain parties over the others. They are currently very integrated with Mintscan (Subscan equivalent on Cosmos). so it's a pay to play scenario for Cosmos validating entities. How can we avoid this precise scenario as well as others not explained here but also related to this (something like "verified badges" or further recommendations) so that we can have a more or less balanced tool. Another item we want to highlight is the absence of SEO mentions on the proposal. Without this, any website, app or tool will be lost in the internet without recourse to be found natively or through the search engines. Why is this important. So that we don't get the same Cosmos problems that create the unbalanced selection described on the V1 "showing that around 19,600 addresses are currently bonded without rewards" which can be "fixed' by further concentrating liquidity away from small validators and thus reducing Polkadot's Nakamoto index and more importantly to not favor the same institutions over and over again. Looking forward to your replies.