• General

  • Request For Comment: Inverse bond emissions reduction

We are approaching inverse bond territory, on this note I suggest we reduce emissions to the bottom of the current emissions tier = 0.1186% when bonds are turned off and/or inverse bonds go live.

Motivation

1)      No OHM will be minted from bonds, hence no emissions needed to cover bond ohm mint dilution

2)      Attempt to reduce sell pressure by reducing rebase selling to a minimum - clear the way for OHM to bounce from inverse bond territory back above liquid backing and beyond

3)      Remain within OIP18 emission framework

Emissions to resume once bonds are re-enabled at policy’s discretion (preferably above backing/OHM)

I would greatly appreciate any feedback/thoughts/contributions from the cohmmunity on this subject

Temperature Check

This poll has ended.

100% in favor of this. the framework gives policy a wide range for this very purpose in my opinion.

Also in favor of this. At this point I believe we can all agree that the health of the protocol is most important. This may also as a good gateway to internal bonds.

We need to reduce emissions. I agree with this motion. I think we should keep it relatively high, say 100%, so we can still build a big treasury. But current 800% is too high.

I agree with this sentiment but it's possible it doesn't go far enough. We need to give inverse bonds the best possible chance of achieving your point #2. As you mention in point #1, since there is no minting from bonds there isn't a need to cover bond dilution with reward emissions. I fully appreciate the desire to stay within OIP18--I think forward guidance is an incredibly important tool for a (de)central bank--but we shouldn't be dogmatic about OIP18 if there is a logical reason to improve upon it in light of new tools being developed (inverse bonds, internal bonds, etc.).

So my vote is Agree but I think we need to be prepared to go closer to zero emissions when inverse bonds are activated.

Great to hear more community sentiment around this - if inverse bonds are deployed, I do believe that emissions should be reduced.

Keen to hear more feelings about by how much (within OIP-18 range) or lower.

I think the the definition should be expanded to reduce emissions when reserve bonds are turned off (which is now) rather than when all bonds are turned off.

The reduced emissions will also reduce the number of LP bonds that need to be sold. Add that to the reduction in emissions from reserve bonds and we should't experience any dilution, as APY is still significant.

Write a Reply...