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.

        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.

        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

          @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:

          1. Is there a roadmap in place that shows the policy teams' strategy to make the reward rate adjustments an autonomous process?
          2. 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.
          3. (edit) Q: Shouldn't APY be based on: Reserve Bond Income + Premium Target?

          Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.

            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.

                Wartull c'mon, lower apy does not equal lower price depreciation necessarily, price can depreciate for any number of reasons, so to say that is a bit disingenuous to me- because if lower apy implied less depreciation all things considered then everything without APY would be sailing high…as a metaphor, but that's just not the case- now it does lower inflation but, again this may not cause price [appreciation or depreciation], it's multitude of factors is all i'm tryna say. i could go on in this vain but that is not my intention or poin,t i'm just sayin keep it real-

                one glaring example: BTRFLY announced a cut apy to 50% wen price was near $200+ it's low was ~11+ and now sits at 15-16, cutting apy did not stop depreciation or help appreciation, it did help with dilution/inflation, it's multi-factorial… this current mkt enviornment is brutal and sentiment/buying in general has tapered considerably across all of crypto… we need to stablize and move ahead…I get it.

                  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.

                      dr00 Circ supply also changes with inverse bonds burning OHM, so not very reliable.

                        I'd prefer a smaller drop because if we have a prolonged winter which is very possible, even likely at this point, we will likely need to further utilize this lever and I think breaking below the current bottom which would be the necessary if we go to the bottom now could be a death sentence. Cut the reward rate by .01(25% of the range from the max to the min) to .1488 from .1588 and revaluate in a months time.

                        This feels like J Powell moving interest rates by like 10 point basis in 1 go. Obviously doing to little won't do anything, but too much in 1 go could be a catastrophe.

                          Heavily in favor. From a long term perspective, this makes a lot more sense, as it can keep OHM more stable, possibly bringing more confidence back to the project.

                          The main criticism of OHM I see is people talking about the initial crash, so if we can begin to push the narrative of true stability & sustainability, that could fit quite well with the current bear market favoring projects with fundamentals, and could bring lots of confidence back as people see OHM getting closer to its original goal.

                          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