Why does it make inverse bonds more efficient?

    bone

    Inverse bonds take supply of the market and reduces downwards pressure, inflation through staking rewards basically counteracts that. By lowering emissions, the effect of inverse bonds is larger/more efficient since you achieve the same effect for a lower capacity.

      I am so supportive that I hit the first button and voted against. I am supportive of making this change. Longevity and runway is most critical.

      I see the Reward Rate as the highest level protocol lever, which basically reflects projected protocol growth rate (if the goal is to minimize volatility). Adjusting this lever to changing macro conditions will only make all other protocol mechanics more effective.

      I support this proposal, we should make IB more effective while they are active and keep the price stable.

      Is this going to be like a floating rate dictated by market conditions?

      While I understand the benefits of reducing reward rate, particularly in these market conditions, I do wonder what the motivation is for going to the absolute lowest rate in the current range. Also with the new frame work we are working on that will reflect a reward rate better suited to market conditions, does this then mean at some point in the future the rate ‘could’ then increase as sell pressure decreases and market demand increases so long as we are within a certain supply range? Or are we to expect a continual decline in reward rate from here on out?

        I agree why go to the bottom, we should go at the middle first and check for the lower possible %? We want to attract more investors at some points for bond revenue no?

          theswanwar also, I don’t understand why the only options are lowest rate and ‘do nothing’ I have yet to vote because I don’t disagree that inflation right now can be an issue but would like to see a breakdown of some sort as to why a specific reward rate is chosen. As it stands I would have to vote for do nothing because I don’t know why I’d vote for the lowest possible without some metric for that option. I’d certainly consider lowering the rate to increase efficiency. Or maybe a proposal where we reduce the rewards for LPs? Just a thought. How productive has the previous OIP where stakers split rewards with LPs been? Are we seeing clear measurable benefits from this? To be clear I’m not saying we aren’t seeing benefits. I’m genuinely curious on the performance of our actions and if reducing rewards based on this proposal make the MOST sense.

            dr00 if this works to make inverse bonds more efficient what is the benefit of a middle ground? Wouldn’t it be best to support the option where inverse bonds as as efficient as possible?

              We should consider targeting 333% APY as a compromise and evaluate from there.

              From a marketing & community standpoint this memetic quality would be welcome. I can just picture it now, all of the "WE'VE HIT 333% APY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PROTOCOL HISTORY" memes and tweets.

              It'd be an incredible missed opportunity if we bottomed it out the range immediately.

                Good idea to start to use the reward rate together with IB as a flexible lever.

                It would however be nice to see some research in the future on how to make it less governance heavy, same for inverse bonds and range stability.

                We don’t want to have the policy team looking at charts every day and adjust these levers constantly. We need more autonomous systems. But I understand that’s not possible today.

                (3, 3) lads

                Against this proposal. Lower costs of dao as a first step. Why do we currently need 700days runway? Cutting apy is the worst thing that can be done now, in case internal bonds and range bound price is availiable, sure lets do it, but at this stage I consider it as another nail in the coffin.