FAQs

Oasis Network is a Layer 1 decentralized blockchain network. As others have said, the address you’re seeing is likely one of the exchange’s cold wallet addresses.

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. 

A: There are a couple things that could be wrong. Make sure that all network services are operational and nothing is down due to upgrades. Make sure there are no extra spaces when you are inputting your address. Lastly make sure you are sending from an oasis1 address to and oasis1 address.

The standard debonding time is approximately 14/+1 days. If more than 15 days passed you can redirect them to open a ticket on our Helpdesk by heading over to the #support channel on Discord.

Ledger Fir

To solve this, you need to Open the Oasis App in your Ledger before you click the transaction on your desktop.

Wallet Information and setup:

https://www.oasisprotocol.org/wallets

https://docs.oasis.dev/general/manage-tokens/holding-rose-tokens/

mware and ledger live are up to date.

The unlock schedule does not include staking rewards, as they are not ‘unlocked’. They are distributed as specified by network protocol on-chain, and depend on how 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. 

TLDR; Staking isn’t visualized in the release chart. 

5.725 Billions as of 6th May 2023. You can always check that on https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/oasis-network/

You can’t transfer directly from CEX to Emerald/Sapphire. First you need to send to the web wallet as web and extension wallets are native so they can withdraw and deposit to CEX. From there you can send funds to your Metamask wallet to use on emerald. Or you can bridge directly into Metamask from other networks, but as we saw earlier, not all pairs are supported. You can follow the steps from this tutorial: https://docs.oasis.io/general/manage-tokens/how-to-transfer-rose-into-paratime/

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.

No, not even by voting.

Oasis Network is a Layer 1 decentralized blockchain network. As others have said, the address you’re seeing is likely one of the exchange’s cold wallet addresses.

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. 

Nano rose (10^-9) on consensus, 10^-18 on emerald and sapphire. be aware that various transactions have separate minimums.

No, Oasis doesn’t have a burning mechanism implemented. We have a finite supply of tokens and the tokens are returned to the on-chain common stake pool. But yes, the tokens can be burnt manually.

You can’t transfer directly from CEX to Emerald/Sapphire. First you need to send to the web wallet as web and extension wallets are native so they can withdraw and deposit to CEX. From there you can send funds to your Metamask wallet to use on emerald. Or you can bridge directly into Metamask from other networks, but as we saw earlier, not all pairs are supported. You can follow the steps from this tutorial: https://docs.oasis.io/general/manage-tokens/how-to-transfer-rose-into-paratime/