Dudemyguy the dumb money may prefer Reward scaling over time, rather than locking, after all dumb money is what will grow the protocol. As for "Jarring" so as you imply by this, you understand Locking is a punitive measure, so how is this going to attract new money? Dumb money asks, what price was your entry $4?

The dumb money, may have bought with the expectation that each OHM was backed by 1 DAI and would expect that over time the price may approach $1, but the runway/apy/bonding was algorithmically adjusted to ensure the protocol stayed solvent, as that was how it was presented. But Obviously the dumb money was not privy to unpredictable changes or the desires of the large bag holders who represent the minority with the majority of votes in scattershot.

Reward scaling achieves all of the desired outcomes without the "Jarring" factor. So, since we are in the "trial and error phase", why not allow both reward scaling and locking to be implemented simultaneously? And see which one is most beneficial to the protocol? Then after the "Trial" axe the least beneficial, if necessary.

Zeus 1 year locks for all the Ohmies! LFG!!

bluesinsoul Just a note on Alchemist vs OHM:
Alchemist's reward is based on different algorithms:
a. $MIST inflates by 1% every fourteen days, these minted MIST are is distributed to $MIST/LP token providers that have bonded their LP tokens to their NFT (crucible Aludel rewards) based on the reward Multiplier that reaches 10x after 60days. As follows:
50% to Aludel reward pool, 25% to $MIST community multisig & 25% to $MIST treasury
b. Since the release of mistx.io flashbots dex - some of the fees are rewarded to the crucible holders.

This is different to how OHM works, OHM inflation is based on bonding, not an arbitrary 1% like $MIST and the only relevant part is Reward Scaling:
If you unstake/claim, you lose your reward multiplier, so there is a large disincentive to unstake. The reward multiplier takes some time to reach maximum, and this could be any period or multiplier.

This achieves the same result as Locking but with more flexibility and without the punitive measure of losing "all rewards".

AS a side:
If OHM implements an NFT similar to Alchemist - then your position could be transferred or sold. And if Locked staking was to go ahead, being able to sell your position would be a compromise since it is locked. So you could sacrifice mobility but provide value and some fungibility at the same time.. I am against locked staking, but if it was implemented this way it would be more palatable.

    Think this is very solid, and would be happy to see it implemented.

    Generally in support, at least for the short term. I was thinking we could add the following to the locked staking:

    After locking sOhms, the DAO (and only the DAO) can change the address to which these tokens will go at the end of the lockup period. This would be useful in at least two scenarios:

    • If an ohmie's wallet gets hacked, he can prove that he's an ohmie and that he has the private key to his address, doxx himself or whatever (burden of proof is on him), the DAO could vote to send it to his new address. The DAO could keep a very small fee or whatever.
    • When remunerating people working for the DAO, we could remunerate them with locked tokens by locking it and then changing the receiving address. The exact remuneration locking period parameters are out of the scope here, but it's just a free option that we could have (like remunerating half/half locked token, or some linear vesting with 20% locked 1 month, 20% locked 2 months etc.)
    • _mp_ replied to this.

      Graz Thanks for the explanation. Yeah I agree if you can somehow auction off your locked position it could be beneficial for both sides of the trade.

      _mp_ Discussed with Drondin on discord, wouldn't work as proposed. See #governance-proposals channel for details.

      Zeus I will just add, that the structure you have applied to each term locked is really just a coarse form of Reward Scaling due to each term having a higher reward.
      I see problems:

      1. Someone who locks for 12 months must earn at a higher rate than someone who locks for 1 month 12 times - means that if someone chooses to continue their term there is little incentive as the reward doesn't automatically scale. Meaning someone is more likely to unstake at the end of each term, and sell some profit. Where with true reward scaling, there is an incentive to stay as the reward is continually increasing. And even when rewards are maxed out, they lose the multiplier, so it is an incentive to stay.
      2. Bonding - how can bonds remain attractive relative to APY? Currently the bonds are often more profitable. How often do you propose that the bond discount will be greater than the one month APY or other term's APY? There is little incentive to Bond if you have to keep the discount low so as not to disadvantage long term stakers? Where on the other hand if the Bond discount is greater, then there is no incentive to stake for a long time. Why would I lock for a period if say I could bond often enough to beat say a three month lock? To avoid this the bonding premium has to remain low more of the time, leading to slower treasury growth.

      True reward scaling doesn't have these problems.

      There should be incentives for longer holding, although I'm not sure if the proposed solution is best.

      Bonds with different duration are pretty standard so I don't get why people are against the idea.

      I think the community should vote to affirm whether we support a new long term incentive mechanism (I'd support it) and then we can argue details.

      @Zeus will there be a community vote on this? If yes please when it will happen?

      Thx

      In order to vote on locked staking there have to be certain implementation details hashed out first. The team is working on it. The next step we want to take is to share a spreadsheet that people can play around with. That sheet will provide more insights in how the reward mechanism for the different locking terms may look like. I hope this sheet will be sharable in the next days.

      To keep this feature on brand, I'd like to propose calling it "Ulysses" or a "Ulysses Contract".

      A Ulysses contract is named after Ulysses of The Odyssey.

      "The term refers to the pact that Ulysses made with his men as they approached the Sirens. Ulysses wanted to hear the Sirens' song although he knew that doing so would render him incapable of rational thought. He put wax in his men's ears so that they could not hear and had them tie him to the mast so that he could not jump into the sea. He ordered them not to change course under any circumstances and to keep their swords upon him and to attack him if he should break free of his bonds."

      It is commonly used in public policy and psychology to realize the benefit of locking in future actions now.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_pact

      Zeus

      I like the locking proposal and am for it. I’d suggest keeping rewards at 1 month 6 month, 12 months and 18 months, similar scale.

      One question:

      1. Why keep the vlOHM token as non transferable and non tradeable?

      Context:

      Let’s say I stake 100 OHM for a year. For whatever reason I want out. I don’t want to unstake and hurt the protocol. But I could trade my vlOHM token and get some funds against it.

      OR

      These vlOHM tokens could also be used as collateral for borrowing on aave.

      What I’m getting at is that if an Ohmie needs money mid year, they should be able to use the vlOHM token in some way. Maybe it could be as simple as borrowing from the OlympusDAO treasury itself with vlOHM as collateral.

      @Revolutionary_Mang033 assuming many things (like that we will be at the same rewards rate, and % of OHM staked vs total supply), we could likely see 12m lock APY far exceed 20k%

      To start with I would like to say that I'm for locking as it'll provide long term stability. After reading various inputs and knowing different views, here are my 2cents.

      1. There's genuine concern that locking might be off putting to a lot of newcomers who joined recently and also to potential joinees. Have we reached critical mass to take this risk at this point in time? If we've, then go ahead with locking. If we haven't, then locking as the only means to earn high APY, should be put off until we reach the desired adoption. Until then, a voluntary locking mechanism that has been proposed by many people, whereby you keep getting higher rewards by staking for a longer term would work best. This is again a temporary measure until we've decent adoption.
      2. Since there isn't a defined roadmap, new comers should not find themselves joining OHM today only to find out that tomorrow / next week, the locking would be implemented and the base APY would drop considerably. This can be a turn off. After any proposal is passed, there should be atleast 3-4 weeks of announcements, tweets etc whereby the newly voted proposal is repeatedly mentioned on all avenues, whereby a new / potential OHMie is aware of the impending changes. Even if someone joins today and the approved / voted proposal is implemented the next day, there should be a history which clearly shows that this was announced for weeks and if someone did not know about it then they did not do their research.
      3. An exponential incentive structure for staking is good, as long as it's not locked and voluntary. The APY multiplier can be tweaked in such a way that there is real incentive to staking with each passing month, without the fear of liquidity and losing rewards. I believe most people want to stake for a long time, but also want the ability to unstake anytime. So cut the rebase rate to bare minimum and keep increasing it exponentially over time. For any OHMs that are unstaked and staked again in the future, you start with the day 1 rebase rate.
      4. Another way to ensure that people don't unstake and sell off, in case of a black swan event is that rewards earned could be made available in % per month. For example, at any point in time, you'll have base rewards + multiplier rewards that you've earned on staked OHM. Multiplier rewards are available at the rate per month. This way the original OHM is liquid, the base rewards are liquid and only x% of the multiplier rewards are liquid. The more time you stake, the multiplier rewards that are available also goes up. For example, in the 1st month, principal staked + base rewards + 10% of multiplier rewards that could be unstaked. In the 2nd month, principal staked + base rewards + 15% of multiplier rewards earned. This way, some of the earned rewards are always locked. Upon completion of the locking period, you'll have access to 100% of multiplier rewards.

      I believe this would let the OHMie 1) keep principal OHM + base rewards liquid, from 1st day 2) stake until they actually desperately need to unstake and 3) An option for longer locking period, like some people suggested, upto 4 years.

      From the UI standpoint, an OHMie should be able to see how much OHM is staked for next rebase, base rewards earned, multiplier rewards earned, and Max OHM available to unstake.

      I believe that those who are opposed have issued with liquidity and losing all rewards if they break the locking period. The above scheme or something similar could help in keeping some rewards liquid and locking most of the multiplier rewards for the locking period.

      This idea definitely needs a lot more thought to come up with various scenarios, but if the general idea is acceptable, it could be worked upon.

      13 days later
      12 days later

      If we decide to go with locked staking, that would be a historical milestone imo. I believe in rewarding desired behaviour, and this milestone would im my opinion give opportunity to the team to thank those who sticked with the project through all the crazy shit that has happened since the launch.
      So, I'd propose to add few levels of one time multipliers for wallets that never unstaked.
      Few levels because someone who bought at 800 - 1200, and sticked with it till now, is definitely our ambassador and we want them to stay, and hopefuly bring in new ohmies.
      This will show new ohmies that team practices what it preaches, and if they behave in protocols best interest that they can expect same kind of treatment too. There is no better marketing than WoM.

      ofcourse this coming from my own greed

      Weighing in here with my mighty single OHM (and steadily growing); and because I'm definitely in this for the long haul, I fully endorse the idea of locked staking for a pre-requisite amount of time, especially if increased staking time leads to those significantly tiered higher rewards that have been mentioned..

      As it stands however, I'm sure many Ohmies enjoy the fluidity of unstaking small amounts here and there to buy ourselves something nice or quickly have extra capital for a dip on our favourite stock or coin.

      I'm just wondering if there's an option to have a set amounts of your portfolio which you can lock for different amounts of time. So for example, I lock up 4 OHM for 12 months, and 2 for 6 months, and another 2 for 1 month; knowing that if I suddenly need it in the short term, I have access to it with a month and it won't affect the lovely work the other 6 OHM are doing?

      Wrong focus and a fool's game. This proposal is about how to CONTROL the REDISTRIBUTION of Olympus value among EXISTING stakeholders. It is a belly button investigation. If we want Olympus to majestically rise above the clouds, our focus needs to be on making Olympus MORE attractive for the funds that are NOT YET in our Treasury (X trillions) - rather than looking at how to redistribute what is WITHIN (20 million).

      Everyone holding OHM/sOHM with this proposal will be DILUTED and ROBBED, unless they are positioned within the far end of the lockup period where their reward yield exceeds the inflation rate of the protocol. This is a HUGE turn-off. Even BONDS will be unattractive unless they yield more than the far end locked up staking yield.

      Anyone who does their math properly does not put his money into tokens like these. Like MIST or CRV - great products, great builders - but the token math and incentives are just wrong if one wants the token to serve society at large rather than a small-sized early bird society. I feel Olympus CONCEPT/VISION is magnitudes larger than what a secret society could ever be.

      I do not participate in an inflationary game, unless my individual reward yield is close to, or exceeds the overall inflation rate of the protocol. But yes, there are a lot of FOOLS with small purses who do - and that is why their purses shall remain small.

      Long live Olympus!