Free Choice: No mandatory lock-up; respect users’ autonomy to unstake.
Long-Term Incentivization: Reward long-term holders through differentiated mechanisms to guide value consensus.
Deflationary Empowerment: Incorporate penalty components (including overlimit unstaking amounts) into the cycle of burning and staking pool, constructing a deflationary model to support the stable appreciation of token value.
II. Specific Scheme (Implemented by Type)
(I) Type 1: Points-Redeemed Staking
1. Unstaking Rules
Unstaking Eligibility: Applications are accepted at any time.
Daily Maximum Unstakable Amount = Daily Total Points-Redeemed Staking Amount × 50%.
Overlimit Handling (Core Revision): If a user’s daily unstaking application amount exceeds the daily maximum unstakable amount, the following rules apply:
Actual Unstakable Amount = User’s Applied Amount × (Daily Maximum Unstakable Amount ÷ Total Daily Applied Unstaking Amount of All Users).
2. Penalty Mechanism
Basic Penalty Triggered by Unstaking: Reclaim all remaining earnings corresponding to the user’s staked amount (including accrued but unpaid staking rewards and retroactively recoverable long-term holding rewards that have been distributed).
Overlimit Penalty: The overlimit unstaking amount (the staked tokens themselves) is merged with the basic penalty earnings for unified distribution.
Distribution of Penalty Pool:
50% injected into the Staking Pool to enhance incentives for long-term staking users.
50% directly burned to reduce the total circulating supply.
(II) Type 2: Direct Token-Purchased Staking
1. Unstaking Rules
Unstaking Eligibility: Applications are accepted at any time.
Unstaking Amount: No upper limit; based on the actual number of tokens the user staked (accurate to the minimum token unit).
2. Penalty Mechanism
Penalty Triggered by Unstaking: Reclaim all accumulated staking earnings corresponding to the user’s staked amount (including all accrued but unpaid and distributed incentives).
Distribution of Penalty Earnings: Consistent with Points-Redeemed Staking — 50% injected into the Staking Pool and 50% burned.
III. Core Formulas (Quantitative Implementation Standards)
1. Daily Maximum Unstakable Amount for Points-Redeemed Staking
plaintext
Daily Max Unstake (Points) = Daily Total Points-Redeemed Staking Amount × 50%
Explanation: “Daily Total Points-Redeemed Staking Amount” refers to the total new staking amount redeemed via points across the project’s entire network on the current day (excluding historical accumulated staking amounts).
2. Core Calculations for Overlimit Unstaking Applications in Points-Redeemed Staking
plaintext
// Actual Unstakable Amount
User Actual Unstake (Points) = User Applied Unstake Amount × (Daily Max Unstake (Points) ÷ Total Daily Applied Unstake Amount)
// Overlimit Penalty Amount (directly deducted and included in the penalty pool)
User Overlimit Penalty (Points) = User Applied Unstake Amount - User Actual Unstake (Points)
Explanation: “Total Daily Applied Unstake Amount” refers to the cumulative unstaking application amount of all Points-Redeemed Staking users on the current day.
3. Penalty Pool and Distribution Formulas
plaintext
// Penalty Pool (Points-Redeemed Staking) = Basic Penalty Earnings + Overlimit Penalty Amount
Penalty Pool (Points) = Base Penalty Earnings + User Overlimit Penalty (Points)
// Penalty Pool (Direct Token-Purchased Staking) = Total Accumulated Staking Earnings
Penalty Pool (Direct) = Total Accumulated Staking Earnings
// Distribution Rules
Staking Pool Inflow = Penalty Pool × 50%
Token Burn Amount = Penalty Pool × 50%
Explanation:
“Base Penalty Earnings” refers to all remaining earnings reclaimed from Points-Redeemed Staking users when they unstake.
“User Overlimit Penalty (Points)” refers to the overlimit staked token amount of Points-Redeemed Staking users.
“Total Accumulated Staking Earnings” refers to all accumulated earnings reclaimed from Direct Token-Purchased Staking users when they unstake.
IV. Core Objectives
Through the combined mechanism of “free unstaking + long-term incentivization orientation + enhanced deflation via overlimit penalties”, the scheme not only guarantees users’ basic capital flexibility but also restrains short-term speculative unstaking behavior through the strong penalty design for overlimit unstaking. Meanwhile, penalty assets (earnings + overlimit token amounts) are recycled into the staking pool and burning channel, further improving the profit-to-cost ratio of long-term staking and the support for token value.
Supplementary Notes
Execution Logic: The smart contract automatically calculates the daily maximum unstakable amount, users’ actual unstakable amount, and overlimit penalty amount. After an unstaking application is submitted, the unlocking, penalty deduction, and distribution will be completed within 1-3 block confirmation cycles.
Data Transparency: The daily maximum unstakable amount, cumulative global unstaking application amount, overlimit penalty amount, and distribution details will be synchronized to the project’s governance dashboard in real-time for community supervision.
Terminology Consistency: Core terms and formulas are unified in line with cryptocurrency project governance practices, ensuring direct applicability for international community communication.
Finally, I think this staking mechanism creates an ecosystem where long-term commitment is recognized and rewarded. It encourages thoughtful participation, reduces short-term noise, and gives users a sense of ownership in Governance. The fact that Voting Power applies to both rewards and Governance decisions is key. This is not just a staking program; it’s a foundation for building a predictable, sustainable, and stakeholder-driven protocol. I’m excited to see it go live.
If we want to be realistic, liquidity hasn’t been deep enough for months. That’s why Conversion 2.0 matters and why it should move forward without endless delays. The longer things stay frozen, the harder it becomes for any holder to plan.
I actually prefer the updated direction because it finally shifts focus away from points and back onto RIVER. For months people were trying to convince others to “take over” their points. Now the path is much cleaner: if you want to participate, just buy RIVER and stake. That’s a much healthier dynamic.
I’ll be honest, I don’t love staking personally, but I get why it exists. Without some form of commitment, governance becomes a popularity contest. I’d rather have people voting who’ve locked something behind their decisions. Maybe later they can add extra perks, like priority access or higher reward tiers, but the base mechanism is fine.
From a protocol risk point of view, staking actually helps stabilize supply. That alone is a net positive. I get that folks are emotional because of past decisions, but mechanically this is hard to argue against. Stronger governance signal, reduced float, and clearer incentives usually translate into healthier token behavior down the line
I see the River team’s sincerity and have incorporated many suggestions regarding River staking. If possible, please provide a detailed launch date as soon as possible. I look forward to continuing this journey with River.
It’s important to recognize that River is taking a much more balanced approach than most DeFi protocols. Instead of forcing multi-year locks, they introduced staking options as short as 3 months and still added an Early Unstake feature based entirely on community feedback. That shows they’re listening and trying to give both flexibility and structure. This isn’t about restricting users it’s about building a healthy governance system with options for everyone.
Have you seen any project that forces users to lock up their own funds, and if they withdraw early, they actually lose a portion of their original deposit?
Or is this the “unique difference” of River that you’re referring to?
SERIOUSLY, stop using BOTS on Discord, Telegram, and EVEN HERE to support forcing these changes on us.
We are not stupid, all these comments supporting the changes are fake. We know just by reading the fake responses, and the staged conversations between bots on Discord and Tg.
NONE of the real human suggestions have been used. Nobody had supported this forced staking, punishment, and reducing our deserved rewards.
Which defi project changes tokenomics suddenly after token release, and then punishes users for not following?
none of the feedback is ignored.
We’ve been collecting every comment across Discord, Telegram, and X, and many parts of the proposal have already been adjusted because of community concerns.
The intention was never to punish users, but to fix structural issues that were already affecting rewards and long-term sustainability.
That said, the way these changes felt to users — especially the “forced” part — is valid criticism. We could have communicated earlier and involved everyone more.
We’re continuing to refine the design based on real user feedback, and your message is part of that process, not something we dismiss.
If you’re willing, share the specific parts you want changed — not just the frustration itself.
Concrete suggestions have been genuinely helpful, and several have already influenced internal discussions.
You’re heard — even when you strongly disagree with the direction.
the team is worried that reopening point conversion could trigger a sell-off, there’s another option to consider:
The team can find a partner who is willing to buy and hold $RIVER long-term.
River Points would then be converted directly into USDT, based on the reference price of $RIVER and the existing Conversion 2.0 parameters.
All the rules remain the same — only the output changes from $RIVER to USDT, removing sell pressure entirely.
Additionally, any investors who still want to hold $RIVER can simply buy it back on the market after receiving USDT from the conversion, at the current market price.
Seven newly created accounts posted “friendly” comments within just a few dozen minutes.
Given the level of activity this forum normally sees, even a monkey could tell that something like this would never happen unless it were staged by the team.
This is exactly the same thing happening on Discord and Telegram, and the fact that they are using the same tactic here shows that the team hasn’t realized that people are so fed up that no one even bothers to point it out anymore.
What is truly disappointing about witnessing this behavior is that it unintentionally proves the team has no intention whatsoever of incorporating real user feedback and is simply trying to bend everything to their own will.
Thanks for this sincere reply. Acknowledging the communication gap and the valid criticism regarding the “forced” aspect goes a long way in restoring trust. It shows the team is listening, which is exactly what we need right now.
You asked for concrete suggestions to fix the structural issues without punishing users. Here is the most critical one regarding the Locking Mechanism:
Suggestion: Separation of Principal and Rewards (No Penalty on Principal)
The biggest source of FUD and fear right now is the idea of users losing control over their initial capital. To bridge the gap between “Sustainability” and “User Safety,” I propose:
100% Principal Liquidity: Users should be able to withdraw their original principal (deposit) at any time without any “slashing” or penalty fees. This ensures that users feel their assets are safe, which is the foundation of trust.
Conditional Rewards: If the protocol needs long-term commitment, apply the “lock” or “vesting” ONLY to the Rewards, not the Principal.
Example: If I unstake my principal early, I forfeit the accrued rewards (or a percentage of them), but I get 100% of my principal back.
Why this helps: This removes the “prison” feeling. Users are willing to bet their potential yield on the project’s long-term success, but they are terrified of risking their principal in a forced lock-up.
If supporters who have locked their holdings lose their shares, or even have their principal damaged, because someone else did something malicious, then that would indeed be somewhat unfair.
If the team can publicly confirm that “Your principal will never be held hostage,” I believe the market sentiment will reverse immediately.
