My new Twitter bot state_of_ohm sparked an immediate and healthy discussion on our APYs. As most of us agree, the APY should no longer be a substantial part of our protocol selling-point and communication, yet obstructing it, can also not be the answer as that overcomplicates OHM, and, especially, gOHM. I gathered all clever proposals from Discord for a new label replacing 'APY'. Please share your other great ideas by commenting below and vote on your favorite one in the poll 
Throw some more names in the ring. Is good proposal.
1. Emissions rate
2. Expansion Rate (drop supply)
3. Rebase Rebate
Ohm Harvest Metric or Ohm Harvest Multiplier Something like that perhaps. It’s contrived, but a backronym
This is actually an important topic, and may tie into a choice between gamification and academia. Here follows maybe an academical approach to support transparency and credibility. (without any arguing against a gamification track)
First, to create the proper reference… Maybe Olympus could align with the common fiat terminology around money supply/stock: https://businessterms.org/money-supply/
M1 = cash, notes and similar financial instruments used as a medium of exchange.
M2 = M1 plus those financial instruments that act as a store of value.
M3 = M1 plus M2 plus like repurchase agreements.
In Olympus case this could translate to:
M1 = unstaked OHM
M2 = unstaked OHM + staked OHM (including those vesting in bond depository contract)
M3 = … if relevant… maybe if pOHM still exists.. maybe M3 = M1 + M2 + pOHM implications. otherwise skip M3.
We could then talk about M1 growth per time unit and M2 growth per time unit.
What is currently referred to as APY or "reward yield" in the staking UI corresponds to tradfi "overnight rate": https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/overnightrate.asp
In the United States, the overnight rate is referred to as the federal funds rate, while in Canada, it is known as the policy interest rate.
In Olympus case, it could thus make sense to rename APY to "policy interest rate" and rename "reward yield" to "overnight rate". And then explain that at Olympus there are 3 nights per 24-hour cycle.
I would expect:
M1 < M2 < M3
M1 growth < M2 growth
A staker would prefer to see:
overnight rate >= M2 growth (should be the case currently while bonds are off)
Overnight rate may sound and promote short-term mindsets in regards to staking…. Mmm.. But thats probably what it will happen anyway once internal bonds develop in volume?
bubbidubb I already shared this on Discord but for completeness sake, so that we are all on the same page, I will add @Relwyn 's and my concerns here too.
@Relwyn : "Does that run the risk of having OHM subject to laws written around the M1, M2 and M3 monetary supplies? If pushed to it, that's a good way to fail the Howie Test pretty quick, yeah?
[..]
Well typically, officially self disclosing to be an X (Say an M1 Money Supply) can make you electively subjected to laws pertaining to X. That's not always the case because sometime, actually being an X has a legal path on how you do it. That said, congress has often applied the Howie Test which is a tongue and cheek way of saying, "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... It's a duck." To quote Gensler, "The Supreme Court’s 1946 Howey Test, which was about orange groves, says that an investment contract exists when there is the investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others.[9] My predecessor Jay Clayton said it, and I will reiterate it: Without prejudging any one token, most crypto tokens are investment contracts under the Howey Test. Even before the Howey test, in the first several years of our federal securities laws, some entrepreneurs were notified that they had to register their offerings of chinchillas, whiskey warehouse receipts, oyster beds, and live silver foxes as securities offerings,[10] as “the purported sale of the…property was merely camouflage and not the substance of the transaction.`[11]`"
I, 0xytoken, agree with @|Relwallyn|. Classifying ourselves in the common fiat/stock terminology means we would self-identify as an asset to-be-regulated; a risk that's not worth it considering the potential up- vs. downside.
@bubbidubb made a great point on Discord: " the SEC guidance on classification of digital assets says: ``In particular, digital assets with the following characteristics are less likely to meet the Howey test: [...] - With respect to a digital asset referred to as a virtual currency, it can immediately be used to make payments in a wide variety of contexts, or acts as a substitute for fiat currency.`` "
I really like @bubbidubb 's proposal and I do not see an increased risk at all, quite the contrary, moving from APY to money supply classifications will make Olympus easier to understand for those familiar with the terms, all while at the same time maybe maneuvering us away from being classified as a security and undermining our position as a digital currency…
Anti-Dilution Rate could be good maybe?
Another suggestion:
"Inflation Compensation Rate"
Because people are compensated against the inflation at a certain rate.
I just updated the poll with the new suggestions, taking out the ones without any votes. Please change your vote, if you would like to.
New suggestions and input are very much welcome! The DAO just replaced 'APY' with 'Annualized Rebases' as a temporary placeholder, not a permanent successor.
Please consider that 'Supply Expansion Rate' is not the same as the APY. The APY is partially manually defined and tries to be as close as possible to the Inflation of OHM, but, crucially, it is not the same. One could argue that it would be fine to call it that since it ideally is equal to it, realistically though, it isn't, and calling it that could be considered technically false.
