Staking for ZKsync

[rafso]

Thanks for the great points everyone. Based on this feedback, I am planning to turn this idea into a more structured proposal. I’ll share an early draft during tomorrow’s Proposal Review Call.

Replying below to some of the questions:

@Tekr0x.eth

I like the idea that users could stake ZK and still delegate their tokens to an active delegate. However, before we move this idea forward, I would like to see results from ARB staking. When can we expect to have results so we can view some KPIs?

The ARB staking contracts are going live in the next few weeks, but it will take months to get results. I think blocking ZK staking on ARB staking will slow down ZKsync too much.

@TempeTechie.eth

Is staking meant only for locking ZK tokens to remove them from circluating supply?

Or is there more to it, e.g. using it to run zkSync validators or sequencers? (I know this is not available yet, just talking about potential future usecases)

Personally I’m in favor of the latter. I don’t see much value in just locking tokens to remove them from circulation. I know it could help the price action, but I think that won’t be an issue in 2025 when we expect the whole market to do well

I think there’s value to moving quickly here. The ZKsync roadmap includes staking for decentralized provers, but it won’t be ready until the second half of 2025 at the earliest. The initial staking plan can be compatible with that one, but live sooner. The goal of the intial program is to get ZK tokens staked and active in governance. Governance, just like proving, secures the protocol.

@cap

But I’m looking forward to seeing more utility around combining this with governance mechanisms.

ZKsync could certainly condition staking rewards on participating in governance or actively using the network, as other rollups like Abstract, Rari and Arbitrum plan to do.

@lex_node

Would love to see a staking system but it should be more like a veCRV-style system imo.

I like veCRV too, although it comes with two big challenges:

1. ve-style governance tokens create a big opportunity for an LST (e.g. Convex) to accrue a huge amount of power in governance. I think the solution here is to pre-empt any non-aligned LSTs with an aligned one. The aligned one distributes its governance power among many delegates instead of auctioning it off. Tally has built such a system that might be useful here.
2. Liquid staking tokens of lockups have duration risk, which can blow up. I think the best way to avoid LST centralization is to avoid lockups.

@bitblondy

Thanks for posting this. I think it’s generally an interesting concept, but as @Tekr0x.eth I would be curious on how it’s going on Arbitrum (and whether there are other DAOs that are following).

There are several other DAOs moving ahead with staking, most notably Uniswap, AAVE, and Rari. There are a few more who haven’t launched yet.

Thanks for all the feedback. Looking forward to discussing more on the call tomorrow!