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?