A great conversation to have.. even if the end result is that we are reminded of the economic principles underneath the protocol that are intentionally geared for dilution as bonding for revenue and being a black hole of value cannot be entirely avoided for us to become the reserve currency of Defi.
We need the revenue, we need supply growth to be a reserve currency. The policy team controls the bonding parameters to help alleviate dilution, but how effective is the policy team going to be without having an idea when a bunch of OHM could be minted underneath the 11% pOHM supply cap? Now if the policy team is aware of that fact and builds in to their models that x% of pohm could vest, then I do not think we should be too concerned over this…
That being said, more transparency over the vesting intentions is a positive and I look forward to some discussion on the matter. I am a pro-capitalist and understand the great risk and ingenuity to create this monster of a protocol. I urge people to not discount this fact when they push for more clarity from the team. Keep it data-driven, keep it level-headed to the future growth of the protocol and lessening the burden of dilution as much as possible on future-ohmies.
I know the "fair launch" is a in-vogue tactic, but I would imagine that the core team was focusing on delivering on a new digital primitive and were locked in using the methodology they chose because it was a market accepted solution to bootstrapping and launching a protocol at the time. Would they change it if they knew what they knew today? Perhaps. Are $ROME and other forks the beneficiaries of tweaking some of the Olympus perfections. For sure. That is the beauty of DEFI.
Compelling post on the forums nonetheless.