OIP-100: Adjust Reward Rate

dr00

Have we considered trying a value between our min/max, rather than the nuclear option of bottoming it out?

I'd like to consider it if we have not, it doesn't feel like a very scientific approach as it stands.

Anyone have thoughts?

streetjesus

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?

abipup

dr00 honestly I'd prefer to lower the rate even more than what's allowed by the current framework. Imo even a 266% 1 year network growth rate is ambitious given the market uncertainty.

High APY will not encourage buy behavior, that meme ship has long sailed. Protecting backing and effectively using our inverse bond tool is what instills real confidence in the protocol

KRDeez

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

ether0

against.

dio

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

theswanwar

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?

dr00

theswanwar +1

theswanwar

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.

DarkLord_gr

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?

dr00

DarkLord_gr +1

dr00

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.

Wartull

dr00 we set reward rate, not APY, so it would be v hard to have that for more than a few epochs

GMasterFunkflex

333% surely???!!!

111-altrektcrew

Wartull i would prefer a more gradual reduction but i sense urgency in the need to deal with selling... inverse bond capacity can only take so much, it's using our treasury dai to fund? thus lowering reserves.. a conundrum...we've got to be able to weather this storm/bear and macro is shit and will be for a while

dr00

Wartull this isn't necessarily true anymore since we changed APY calc to use circulatingSupply rather than percent staked. We have maintained a constant 467% for many weeks now.

moyo

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

Tlacka

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.

Wartull

Tlacka

It's important to understand that staking is merely inflation and does not reflect any actual yield. High APY => Quicker price depreciation bc backing per OHM goes down hand-in-hand. Lower APY => Lower price depreciation. It's a net-zero action.

HumbleFarmer

Higher emission gives the current stakers a larger share of the pie. Isn’t it sensible to reward who keep 3, 3 ethos in this bad market condition?

CosmicRadii

I don't mind this considering the condition of the crypto market. But I am a bit concerned, if we're having to go to the extreme end of the reward rate drop for the supply range already, and we're not even 30% of the way to the next range. That means we will either be stuck with this reward rate for a long time, or what I suspect to be more likely, it will have to be reduced again before we hit the next supply milestone. Breaking the APY structure and potentially damaging confidence in the project. I understand even if that is the best way to go forward, but I do think if the policy team suspects there is potential for that being the likely outcome at some point soon enough, it should be communicated as early as possible.

Kaido

Against..

Yella

@abipup could you explain to me why we go with a reward rate reduction rather than:

A new framework that gets switched on when Reserve Bonds are off?

I am asking because it is unclear to me what the benefit is of having an APY while Inverse Bonds are active (wouldn't backing increase drastically if APY is close to zero when we are under backing?).

Also, a little bit uncorrelated to the topic perhaps, but:

Is there a roadmap in place that shows the policy teams' strategy to make the reward rate adjustments an autonomous process?
Are there talks on how we market APY? To me, it feels more as a way to not get diluted, rather than an actual form of yield.
(edit) Q: Shouldn't APY be based on: Reserve Bond Income + Premium Target?

Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.

abipup

Yella thanks for the questions!

Overall a new framework will take time to carefully build out and propose. The reward rate change is more urgent imo as we lean into inverse bonds and market outlook shifts more negative. No promises given but new framework is several weeks away.

There really isn't a benefit to anyone of having staking rewards active when the protocol is stagnant. We're just trading supply for price.

To answer your numbered questions:

No roadmap for that, but we are working with engineering to make sure the mechanisms needed by the v2 framework can be automated.
Since the beginning there's been arguments about how to market APY. We'll be in a better place when it gets renamed to a more accurate term because you're right, it's not USD yield.
Still TBD but it could be based on premium, or a target % of OHM locked in OHM bonds, or a combination of those and other things. That's all going to be part of v2 framework