Thanks for putting together this well thought out proposal @Ari.
I’m sorry to say though, as this is something we’ve talked about internally for years, it is an impractical solution with too many technical caveats.
The main issue being: it is impossible to give the user stLINK and take an ongoing fee from that user of their rewards. Either the user would have no LST in exchange, or any LINK staked via SDL delegation would have a 2nd LST.
The simplest and feasible solution would be that a % of all LINK staked would be directed to non-reSDL holders and then SDL stakers would receive a fee. That was already proposed here and I replied to that with my reasoning against it.
@Sinbua raises great points and it’s something we’ve mentioned before. Indirectly, the fee from LINK staked to the SDL pool is the “delegation” fee, it’s just that the pool has not yet exhausted the LINK from SDL stakers to make that a reality.
I do agree on the points around the liquidity in the Priority Pool. Although, unless we don’t see a liquidity rush when LINK from SDL stakers is completely exhausted, then I personally have no concerns.
In addition, the point around team time is a very valuable one. Don’t underestimate the time and cost for implementation of features that involve building out completely new contracts. There’s engineering time that incurs opportunity cost, and with any new contract that holds significant assets with some complexity a private audit from a single firm will cost 30k+ USD. If you add a public audit on top of that and use a second firm, it can easily be north of 100k.
For those reasons, I will be voting no on this proposal.