- Edited
With alchemist model, people can just capitulate the minute they get all emotional..... whereas with locking emotional capitulation is greatly reduced"
I think you're spot on with this and I'm personally excited for a 'set it and forget it' approach with a promising project like Ohm. If I'm locked in for 6 or 9 months, then I'm not checking the price all the time or debating what move I should make, selling one thing for another but losing more in gas fees than anything.
When FUD overload occurs during bear periods, we've all made dumb moves where you sell something you actually believe in for just a slight profit (or loss), but then aren't able to buy back in at a good price because of FUD, FUD, FUD. Then before you know it the market takes back off, and there you sit feeling like the weakest, smooth-brained, tissue-handed ape to ever bang on a keyboard.
So, there's 2 big attractions/rationales here I think everyone should consider:
As Dudemyguy said "with locking, emotional capitulation is greatly reduced" - This is potentially HUGE... for stability of Ohm price, stability of community and success of long-term project objectives
Maybe more importantly, @Zeus has said "Bet big on projects and people you believe in" We have a mechanism to do that here with longer term locked stakes. Betting big means a chance for big rewards, but never without risk.
Now we could wait for some perfect window, macro/micro tweak the proposals to death trying to idiot-proof the staking process, but I don't think that would be good for the protocol, and it doesn't enable those of us who believe to Bet Big.
Summing up, I think the common sense of it is:
- Utilize multiple lock up lengths to distribute your risk exposure
- You can always just unstake your principal if shit hits the fan in life
- A contract is a contract is a contract (let's not build in paper-hand clauses)
- Where there's a path to weaken FUD powers and strengthen 3,3, let's take it!!