I don’t like this approach and I don’t think it’s a viable long term solution:
it creates a barrier to entry for keepers that might not have a spare 40*125$ lying around, since they might not see it as profitable enough to spend time on creating bots/strategies, thus reducing the pool of participants that might just have great ideas / would be incentivized by this to learn the tech, but don’t have the bags necessary
along those lines will it reduce buying pressure since if <40 bonds won’t help me as a keeper, why would I buy 10, even if I could afford 10? and i’d assume that reaching 40 bonds starting from 0 is pretty much out of the picture for most casual keepers, so the thought might be to just farm one and dump it → adding selling pressure
it will also create selling pressure since every keeper that has >200 in their wallet won’t have any use for any extra tokens and will dump them
This is just an idea but isn’t it possible to have an on-chain oracle that provides the fast-gas value (or even the helper contract?), keepers use this gasprice when sending the transaction and the contract checks tx.gasprice and rejects transactions that have a higher gasprice.
If feasible it’s a simple solution.
Then I’d add bonus rewards based on bonds starting from 0, using a decreasing function (a variation of square root for example), so that the keeper will always have an incentive to increase his bonds / keep his work, but the rewards will be decreasing so that either very rich or very busy keepers don’t deplete jobs bonds.
This way it’s always beneficial for a keeper to keep (!) his keepers (!!) as it will give her a slight edge in the competition, plus if she want’s a headstart and has some disposable cash, why not invest in 20 to boot? Plus having bonded keepers would act as different kind of store of value since it’s price might not be so much of a factor but the fact that i can generate more income for my keeper by having it.
The Keep3rV1Helper contract does expose the fast gas value, however I don’t want to put arbitrary restrictions on jobs, a job can still avoid this cap, this is only for KP3R credits automation.
On the rest, open to suggestions for other Keep3rV1Helper proposals, would be interesting to see how a sliding scale is codified/implemented
Is the above scenario profitable?
The tx fee is greater than the Kp3r earned. Is that correct? Or Am I missing something?
If tx is greater than earned kp3r in value, how can a keeper be profitable?
Plus as i checked on keep3r.live,
The net earning is -375 because the tx is more than the earnings?
Did i make any wrong? Can anyone please verify this? Thanks so much
Hmm. But this would fix the gas-war issue? I’m just talking about having a fixed gas price to be implemented by every keeper and every keeper using > will be discarded for the job.
As implemented, it will a) basically make it impossible to compete for anybody with less than 200 bonds (or … votes?? How does one get those actually?) - since those that have the boost can easily add to their gasprice while still running profitably and b) eventually convert this to a race to the bottom since people with 200 bonds will just increase their gasprice up to the point where everybody’s profitability ~0…
Also other protocols could see a working proof-of-concept and thus be more inclined to think of it for adoption.
Unless there’s some technical obstacle that i’m not seeing, I don’t know why this is not adopted.