Two facts in the Hyperstaking docs sit next to each other in a way I hadn't connected before. First: a contract can stake on behalf of depositors and distribute rewards by its own logic — the contract itself becomes the staking participant, not the individual depositor. Second, separately, in the tokenomics docs: #dusk slashing is soft — no burn, just reduced effective participation and rewards for the provisioner at fault.
Put those two together and there's a real open question, not an answer I have: if the contract is the provisioner, and the provisioner is what gets soft-slashed, how does that reward reduction land on the depositors behind it? The docs describe both mechanisms on their own. Neither one says how they interact once a contract is standing between the depositor and the penalty.
Sozu is currently the only named Hyperstaking pool, and it was still in beta as of the last update I've seen — so this hasn't played out anywhere yet, on-chain or otherwise.
What I'd check next: whether Dusk's or Sozu's docs specify how a soft-slashing penalty gets divided among a pool's depositors, or whether that's left undefined.
$DUSK
@Dusk_Foundation
Put those two together and there's a real open question, not an answer I have: if the contract is the provisioner, and the provisioner is what gets soft-slashed, how does that reward reduction land on the depositors behind it? The docs describe both mechanisms on their own. Neither one says how they interact once a contract is standing between the depositor and the penalty.
Sozu is currently the only named Hyperstaking pool, and it was still in beta as of the last update I've seen — so this hasn't played out anywhere yet, on-chain or otherwise.
What I'd check next: whether Dusk's or Sozu's docs specify how a soft-slashing penalty gets divided among a pool's depositors, or whether that's left undefined.
$DUSK
@Dusk_Foundation