FAQs
Staking
Currently, the base layer consists of a modified version of Tendermint Core, a Byzantine-Fault Tolerant consensus engine. It uses a PoS mechanism and a decentralized set of node operators.
This multi-node architecture aims to reduce complexity and, ultimately, the risk of computational errors at the execution layer, which allows it to have a Consensus with only 2/3 of nodes connected.
The amount displayed in gigashares is the amount worth in the validator’s escrow pool. When de-bonding, you get the whole amount and not only the gigashares.
The system is designed to auto compound rewards for every participant each epoch (roughly every one hour).
For choosing a validator to delegate and stake your tokens, nearly none. If you choose one of the validators with less rose staked, it may be replaced by another one, so you will not receive rewards, but if you use one of the first lets say 50 or 80 from the total 120 validators, you will do just fine. Your rose is just locked in your wallet, so there is no risk of losing it, and the chance of token slashing is little as I don’t believe anyone wants to lose their tokens risking bad practices.
It is mostly personal preference at the moment of choosing, you can check their socials and their activity at oasis scan and see which one you like.
There is no kind of penalty. There is only one exceptional case, in which if they try to double sign a block, it has never happened, but if it does, some of the Rose is slashed, even a portion of users delegating. It is quite unlikely that will happen. If validator tries double sign, he gets removed, and delegators lose 100 rose.
The minimum you can stake is 100 ROSE.
Yes, you can earn rewards by delegating your ROSE to our Network.
We have non-custodial Wallets you could start using to do the delegation. You could even use Ledger connected to our Oasis Wallet.
Please check the following links to get started.
https://oasisprotocol.org/wallets
https://docs.oasis.dev/general/manage-tokens/oasis-wallets/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=296&v=IlN4xi2PaLk&feature=youtu.be (This is a staking tutorial)
Head on over to http://oasismonitor.com/ input your wallet address, and then click on the rewards tab.
Yeah they can not lose their tokens. There is no way to get slashed and the tokens are not in custody by the validator.
As of 7th May 2023, it is close to 6%, though you can always check the full schedule over here
https://docs.oasis.io/general/oasis-network/token-metrics-and-distribution#staking-incentives
Picking an active validator is entirely up to you. Keep in mind that different validators have different commission fees, and that the binance validator requires a vesting period. Meaning if you debond and exit from the binance node, before the vesting period has expired, you will not get any of the rewards. Spreading it out in different active validators helps in keeping the network decentralized.
The wallet does not have the option of adding to an existing one. A new delegation needs to be created each time.
Escrow shares is a reference to your part of a given validator’s total stake. A share is often confused with a token, but you commonly have less shares than you have tokens. So for instance if you have 1000 shares of a validators escrow, those shares can be redeemed for tokens, but it’s not a 1:1 relationship.
In other words, an escrow share represents a share of the validators stake. If you look at oasisscan.com on your wallet you can see that those escrow shares represent the tokens you staked. You will not lose tokens on debonding.
So if you reclaim those 9230 shares, what you’re really doing is you’re going to the validator saying ‘here, these are my shares, I would like my tokens please” and after debonding you will receive your ~10k tokens plus any validation rewards.
Using number of validators to measure a networks decentralization is a good place to start, however there is still far more than just the # which should be considered. I will give you an example. If Oasis were to increase the validator count from 120 to 200 validators, but Binance set up 80 new validators and delegated their current stake to all those validators with no one else delegating they would still be in the top 200 for all of the validators. The effect would be that the network has increased the number of validators by 66.6% but not gained any decentralization at all since there is still the same amount staked in the network and no new entities joined the validation pool. At the same time though we would have increased the number of redundancies that must be performed in each block which would hurt the ability of the network to scale. The end result would be the same decentralization and a less efficient network. Now obviously this is a contrived example, but I think it is a fair one which demonstrates that simply measuring the number of validators to evaluate decentralization is not enough. In ETH 1.0 for example there were countless validators, but a cartel of mining pools ran the majority of those validators. Just because they were running many validators did not necessarily mean they were increasing decentralization at all. There are decreasing marginal returns for increasing the validator pool size. After the last increase from 110 to 120 the newly established 10 validators accounted for less than 1% of the total stake in the network meaning they contributed very little decentralization. They have increased a good amount since then so perhaps it is worth submitting another governance proposal to increase from 120 to 130, but if we for example went to a committee size of 200 it is likely that the bottom half of those validators would have little to no effect on decentralization, but would definitely be wasteful and make the network less efficient.
The validator takes its commission from your rewards when they are distributed. This happens every epoch (approx. 1 hour)
The total amount you see in your wallet includes auto-compounded rewards. At that time, the Validator already got their commission.
Staking isn’t taken into account in the release chart, as they are not ‘unlocked’. They are distributed as specified by network protocol on-chain, and depend on the total escrow of tokens staked on the network. Because of this, the circulating supply can and will deviate from the token unlock schedule. As you can see on the unlock schedule, it ends right below 8bn tokens. The tokens not accounted for in the unlock schedule are the tokens distributed through staking.
Commission is deducted from the rewards
They stop earning staking rewards, but they don’t get slashed. you can still debond as normal, with the ~14-day debonding period.
Tokens
Escrow shares is a reference to your part of a given validator’s total stake. A share is often confused with a token, but you commonly have less shares than you have tokens. So for instance if you have 1000 shares of a validators escrow, those shares can be redeemed for tokens, but it’s not a 1:1 relationship.
In other words, an escrow share represents a share of the validators stake. If you look at oasisscan.com on your wallet you can see that those escrow shares represent the tokens you staked. You will not lose tokens on debonding.
So if you reclaim those 9230 shares, what you’re really doing is you’re going to the validator saying ‘here, these are my shares, I would like my tokens please” and after debonding you will receive your ~10k tokens plus any validation rewards.
Using number of validators to measure a networks decentralization is a good place to start, however there is still far more than just the # which should be considered. I will give you an example. If Oasis were to increase the validator count from 120 to 200 validators, but Binance set up 80 new validators and delegated their current stake to all those validators with no one else delegating they would still be in the top 200 for all of the validators. The effect would be that the network has increased the number of validators by 66.6% but not gained any decentralization at all since there is still the same amount staked in the network and no new entities joined the validation pool. At the same time though we would have increased the number of redundancies that must be performed in each block which would hurt the ability of the network to scale. The end result would be the same decentralization and a less efficient network. Now obviously this is a contrived example, but I think it is a fair one which demonstrates that simply measuring the number of validators to evaluate decentralization is not enough. In ETH 1.0 for example there were countless validators, but a cartel of mining pools ran the majority of those validators. Just because they were running many validators did not necessarily mean they were increasing decentralization at all. There are decreasing marginal returns for increasing the validator pool size. After the last increase from 110 to 120 the newly established 10 validators accounted for less than 1% of the total stake in the network meaning they contributed very little decentralization. They have increased a good amount since then so perhaps it is worth submitting another governance proposal to increase from 120 to 130, but if we for example went to a committee size of 200 it is likely that the bottom half of those validators would have little to no effect on decentralization, but would definitely be wasteful and make the network less efficient.
Staking isn’t taken into account in the release chart, as they are not ‘unlocked’. They are distributed as specified by network protocol on-chain, and depend on the total escrow of tokens staked on the network. Because of this, the circulating supply can and will deviate from the token unlock schedule. As you can see on the unlock schedule, it ends right below 8bn tokens. The tokens not accounted for in the unlock schedule are the tokens distributed through staking.