OIP-100: Adjust Reward Rate

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?

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

against.

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 +1

DarkLord_gr +1

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?

333% surely???!!!

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

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.

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?

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.