OIP-9: Locking

@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.

Zeus does anyone have an update on when locked staking will go into effect or when we can vote on it?

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?

bubbidubb Anyone who does their math properly does not put his money into tokens like these.

It will be more constructive if you can back up your claim with some data. Bear in mind that the team does not always make the right decision, hence we have a discussion like this. If you have any suggestions that can help the protocol, please state them concisely.

kschan Thus far the protocol has been able to able to achieve ₉₂% of OHM staked in just three months. That’s an impressive achievement and as time passes and more ohmies come along that number will only go higher. Personally feel locked staking creates a chasm between the ohmies.

With staking wealth will play too much of a factor similar to the current financial system, and this doesn’t fit the idea that all ohmies are ONE.

Focus should be on making the protocol as profitable as possible. Not this.

This was something that a lot of early OHMies felt like we needed. And after a few weeks here are some thoughts.
Now that the APY's have come down and the liquidity thickened I see it as becoming less of a problem. Are we trying to solve a problem that is becoming less of an issue? and is the solution more of a headache than what it's worth?

But how do we reward long term holders and disincentive short term holders?
I think everyone can agree that long term holders should receive better rewards than rebase hoppers.

This proposal has been fairly polarizing so hopefully we all come together and decide the best course of action (one way or another there will be some unhappy people, and if it doesn't turn out the way you were hoping that doesn't necessarily mean we made the wrong choice). Let's continue the discussion and figure out what's in the best interest of the DAO.

kschan Sure .. The data to explain the mechanics of inflation and math? There are better resources than my ad hoc writing for that. But look at the world, filled with inflating currencies. Real-world inflation does not make us as a WHOLE any poorer (except from moral hazard and an obfuscation of value (zombie)). But because of how the newly minted supply is distributed, it alters your POSITION in the wealth distribution hierarchy. If you are lucky and belong to the 1-5%'ers you will likely be a winner from inflation. If you belong with the majority, your wealth is silently skewed off your pocket and into the top classes. In the real-world, the moral justification for this redistribution of wealth is that it preserves and creates jobs. At Olympus, societal job creation is not part of the raison d'etre - so what would be the moral justification to tinker and intentionally skew inflation rewards in favor of one group of people versus another? According to early Medium posts, 90% of rewards go to stakers, 10% to the DAO. And anybody is free to join at equal opportunity - that is pretty darn attractive! But skew those 90% in favor of a certain group, and Olympus will be a whole lot less attractive for those looking at Olympus from the outside.
Suggestion #1: Do NOT introduce arbitrary yield tier levels as proposed above. It pegs favoritism to the system.

Our Elders, 2-3 generations ago used to sign papers, send to the government together with a cheque. Walk down to Post Office few weeks later, pick up a bundle of papers. Walk home, put them in a safe. At the end of each epoch, they would pick a coupon from the bundle in the safe. Walk back to the Post Office. Hand in the coupon, and get some interest paid out. The government offered interest, and near zero liquidity. 50 years have passed and we have digitized much of the financial world. The same instruments still exist, but they are now digital and the most liquid in the world and you can flip millions within the blink of an eye. Liquidity has an immense value and is a primary reason why U.S. notes are a most sought after instrument. Liquidity is also underappreciated by many in crypto. Olympus has as ambition to be the bedrock of DeFi. We do not conquer the world by going back 50 years in time - offering illiquidity. We need to ask the right question before going looking for answers. Whenever we put a "lock" on somebody, we create inefficiencies. We burden whoever tries to go inside, and we burden whoever tries to go out. We need less friction at the point of purchase, not more. Liquidity and returns are part of the same equation. Remove liquidity, and the Treasury will need to compensate for that flaw with higher yields, and less runway days for all.
Suggestion #2: Do try out diversified durations for (zero) coupon bonds with market priced yields, but do NOT lock up or punish the individual investor. This requires a rephrasing of the problem statement that OIP-9 is trying to address.

Revolutionary_Mang033 If you are a long-term 3,3 you will be a beneficiary of these peoples activities. It creates brand awareness and recognition. It creates first-time buyers - who are more likely to do a future repurchase than someone who never bought in the first place (how many repurchases have you done on Amazon or Walmart, since you first created your account?). Their pump/dump generates 0.6% in swap fees, enriching the Treasury. When they buy, they buy X % of OHM supply. Through staking, their absolute nr of OHM increases. But their % of supply decreases, and that delta enriches the DAO. Without rebase/inflation - the price impact for you would be net zero - if you steel yourself from emotional turmoil. But since they are in fact diluted along the way, you as a long-term 3,3 will be gaining. Treasury is enriched. DAO is enriched. Brand value is increased. Likelihood of future repurchase is increased. Price impact net positive.

badgerpawz

I totally agree with your proposal and the solution.

bubbidubb well said ohmie.

I value what Bubbidubb is saying, however I feel spaceGhost has a point. The reality of the crypto market is people are chasing reward , they will jump on olympus when eth and btc are sideways but once they take off will move out again.
there is value in stability if you are looking for a long term value position of ohm.
What I understand from the tokenomics of ohm is that over the next 2 years or so we will look at the ohm rewards gradually reducing to be in line with the inflation in the system 5-10 % apy once the token has stabilized .

Thus my feeling is staking at the current apy of the day but fixing for a period is a great option for ohm long term goal of a stable valuation token.
That leaves open a position for others to step in and out at any time with the apy as it moderates over time.

Guy, since this thread is not relevant anymore, is there any other updated discussion on this issue somewhere in the forum?

Zeus Strongly agree that locking mechanism is necessary to reduce trading and fear selling.

Zeus love the direction of this

Locking this due to inactivity