One of the reasons, I'd say the main reason people bought and staked ohm was they liked to see their number of tokens go up. Then gohm came along and we shrugged cos we inherently knew, that the accumulation was still happening.

Now we're shifting again, lowering the apy ahead of schedule, removing further rewards and yield at a time when the price has cratered.

Have you considered if this goes wrong and we go rapidly into reverse, the apy now not worth the risk / reward of investing / staking in the protocol?

Also, why max reduction or nothing? Surely there's room here for a 333% apy marketing event?

Firmly against the reduction personally.

    abipup Thank you so much! I have the full picture now, in favor of this OIP.

      Reward long term holders. Give higher rate to those who aren’t unstaking.

      masterexit i think we need to understand that the apy is more of an inflation than a reward. my coins have not gained value since i staked and i dont think anyone is sellling their surplus as a profit. although its not 1:1 i would rather have stable price appreciation than token appreciation.

        tbh i always thought that the goal was to lower the apy as fast as possible and those who stayed the longest would be rewarded in all the tokens they gained at a much higher value. however i assumed organic decreasing of the apy was the teams plan based on the table they provided. decreasing to the minimum makes the team look desperate and i think more clarity on how this would help with inverse bonds and some data is needed. it feels like yall are just telling us to trust this plan with out giving us all the cards.

        1. are inverse bonds and walls not enough to maintain price stability?
        2. are we not making enough to maintain to maintain inverse bonds?
        3. is 700 days not enough runway?
        4. what data do you base a successful inverse bonding? rate of burning vs rate of inflation?
        5. what happens if lowering the apy to the minimum does not bring the desired effect?
        6. if the desired effect is reached before the 12 epochs can we stop at that rate?

          cyberchase good questions.

          1. They are enough when used responsibly in concert with the rest of the system (reward rate included). If the system is totally out of balance, then the range bound stability wouldn't work.
          2. Not really sure how to answer this question, the protocol can infinitely maintain inverse bonds when price is under backing. It's just that inverse bonds become more effective when paired with a lower inflation rate.
          3. 2 years runway is desirable. For me, it's less about when the runway hits 0, and more about maintaining backing for as long as possible.
          4. % discount, approximate recycle rate, net inflation, and net market flows are all important key metrics to assess the performance of inverse bonds. Reward rate impacts the latter two the most.
          5. The desired effect is to decrease net inflation pressure on inverse bonds and the general market as much as possible, until a more comprehensive emissions framework is formalized. So by definition lowering reward rate will achieve that.
          6. See above

              I think it may be time to retire the use of "APY" frens

                abipup thanks for responding i understand the basics and look forward to that v2 framework. ill be voting yes. also the term "apy" does sound of not that where in a bear market

                  I think we should work on generating more revenue. We have a good enough pool. But utilizing it to generate revenue is the best way forward. Reducing the APY might cause a lot of sell pressure and the inverse bonds will get utilized even more. So concentrate on revenue generating projects. Work done by developers and policy teams are not the same as it was earlier. Cut down on those budgets.

                  There is still some active ohm forks. merge them back to ohm. if there is budget for marketing team use it to get those forks buy ohm and get a deal worked out for them. Increase in treasury will help in this mercy less market condition.

                  Liquid backing is continously decreasing. It has not at all raised. Price keeps falling. Inverse bonds will use the stables to buy ohm and resulting in continuous fall of backing. This means no bonds and no revenue. Now reducing the APY will mean more selling and more quick fall. IN the end price to 0 and the remaining stables will be split by the select few. I am with ohm for a year now. I was supporting all the while. Now it looks like a ponzi. Nothing done to increase the revenue. This is horrible.

                  abipup

                  On second thought, why is the reward rate change more urgent when macro shifts negative?

                  Wouldn't a negative macro outlook lead to heavier sell pressure, therefore a higher chance of trading below liq backing?

                  And, if we would trade below liquid backing, any APY % would have a negative effect on the Hodlers no?

                  What am I missing ser?

                    Write a Reply...