Against this proposal.
We won't be voting against it via Abachi (~8000 votes) since that will require a vote on our end, and this will probably be pushed through much before that. I will however vote against it personally.
Before making these decisions please consider:
1. The flywheel also works in reverse. Every single DAO has reduced and gone into a negative tailspin from there on. There are real repercussions of this proposal where folks will remove supply from staking and exit.
2. The yields and rebase is what gives stakers a revenue stream. Yes they sell and it adds pressure, but this allows them to retain the original stake. A god send for a bear market. If you remove that, what the point?
3. Before making any such decisions, alternate ways of revenue should be explored. Reducing APY is simple, but adding it back will not be as much. Pro bond rev, partner token rev should all be realised into reserve assets (btc, eth, usd).
4. Reduce inverse bonds to BELOW premium. In a bear market, asset backed protocols should be trading below premium to offset for risks and emissions, yet our inv bonds do not reflect that. They provide support short term, and in extreme volatility, but they also drain the treasury. If you place them below the premium, the treasury is always in profit and people can still exit without slippage or sell pressure on LPs.
A note on OHM.
The rebase allows protocols to hold onto OHM and help grow its economy. We at Abachi always intended to use OHM as a means of incentives and back in december were very cognizant that the price may trend towards $1. The emissions offset the price reduction.
This means instead of paying in our own token, we want to pay out in OHM to incentivize pools etc. This is an ideal situation for us because OHM is liquid and we acquire more OHM as we grow to pay out incentives (see discussions here: [ABIP-14] [RFC] - 3²,3² Open gOHM bonds up to 33% of treasury - Governance / Request For Comments - Abachi)
The focus should be in using OHM as a currency, as a pair and providing OHM out to protocols to shore up their LPs. If the price sticker is a shock to most, it should not be, this is what everyone bought into. It literally compounds so all you need to do is buy below the premium.
At least would love to see what are the plans to get the flywheel in motion again and bring in revenue if emissions are cut as part of this proposal. How much does it help backing go up, how much does it help in revenue realised. How much does it help in adoption.