Graz @Zeus I second Graz's suggestion, with a multiplier on rewards that grows with time to a max, you don't have any of these tiers, the terms are user controlled while also achieving much less complexity.

    Graz This system would start with base rewards for everyone and then gradually increase rewards multiplier. Since we are currently at a very high APY, this may introduce a shock to the current system. Not saying its a bad thing, but it would be quite an event.

    • Graz replied to this.

        I think locking is a mistake, as it is artificial behavior and no longer organic.

        The long-term results are unforeseeable vs real-time results. I think something simpler, like randomizing the time to rebase is a better solution.

        This prevents rebase hoppers from being able to coordinate their withdrawal and sell-offs, without watching their screen all day.

        In a scenario where a large portion of OHM is locked for a year, I would naturally start viewing that day as an impending massive sell-off...this would make me move to DAI the day before for "just in case" there is a massive price dump...if more people think the same way then they would do the same, causing a dump just before each payout.

        A self-fulfilling prophecy.

        This would be true of every OHM payout day. The day before could be a liquidation event.

        This would result in the dumpers on the second day, selling their OHM rewards cheap to be scooped up by the DAI holders at discount.

        Compared to current behaviour where you have various individuals, at random, rebase hopping you will create a larger problem of, via forcing artificial behaviour, the potential of artficial price dumps compared to organic ones.

        I also think we are too early in this protocol to make such a drastic change. Lets at least give the current state 6 months of organic behavior to see how it evolves naturally.

        Randomizing rebases throughout the day is a less drastic but likely effective solution, than locking imo.

          I’ve re-read the proposal a couple of times. There doesn’t seem to be an articulable problem statement that this proposal is trying to resolve.
          Also, there doesn’t appear to be a link to how the proposal fits within an overall strategy.

          Without a problem to resolve I would not support. This does not mean I cannot be turned but as presented , no.

          Also,
          Take caution that the punitive aspect of unstaking early moves in the direction of gambling and will operate as a disincentive and result in differential treatment.

          My two cents.

            bluesinsoul well the suggestion is to reduce everyone's apy until they move into the new "model" - what the new model is, is the issue. I don't have a problem encouraging the move, and at some point there would be an "equilibrium", where the benefit of migration outweighs remaining in the old system.

              is the "Boost" an addition to the 0.25% daily rebase or a guaranteed increase of OHM in your balance in one year by 450%? (i am not talking about fiat or exchange rates just how much my Ohm balance will increase)

                balotelli45 so we still get the 0.25% daily rate + 400% annualized ? (@ 12 months)

                  rotorless The problem it is trying to solve is with the current APY, it favors short-term behavior: stake large amount of OHM, get the rebase, then sell a lot of them for profit. This tanks the OHM price significantly. Long-term stakers suffer as they would have to stake for a very long period to break even, provided the protocol has enough runway.

                      kschan well that is resolved with reward scaling, lockup terms are likely scare many off. In fact it may increase bonding as the return will be without a lockup, but then OHM would be dumped as there is no incentive to then lockup - so it is lose lose:

                      1. Lockup: people will be far less likely to participate.
                      2. People who bond will dump,
                      3. Leading to everybody bonding and dumping rather than locking up .... and then bonding will have to be restricted and the protocol will cease to grow as the price plummets. - bonding is essential to increase the treasury and mint new ohm.

                      Reward scaling without lockup solves the problem

                        I am quite confused as for the assumed support in the community for time locking. According to the the latest discussion most of the participating people were AGAINST the time lock - https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/26-oip-6-extended-staking-terms - so how did you get to the point that there is a support for the idea? Please explain.

                        Another thing, if 1 year time lock would mean just 4x of initial staked tokens, how can we maintain today’s apy, or even if we would cut the daily rebase to half? It would still mean just 400% apy comparing to current 100 000%.

                        Strongly against time locking. All of my arguments were posted in the discussion here:

                          SUBGURU i think its alright to change your opinion on things after the more recent events of last week or so, it would be a good idea for people to voice their opinions again if they have changed (such as mine)

                          Short term people are unstaking and dumping ruining for everyone else who is 3, 3. We can see this from the price drop to 1.4k to 160, During this crucial bootstrap phase we need to incentive 3,3 to draw more people in, more liquidity and more pcv via bonds

                          short term sellers lead to an avalance in sells which can kill a project in its infancy, in 1 year time ohm will look alot different and im sure plenty of people can exit and use it like it was intended a currency for defi without any deterimental effect on the protocol

                          • Graz replied to this.

                              Zeus Sounds great! Do you think an even longer lockup than 12 months would be possible/desirable? Edit: I do personally like Graz's suggestion (aludel model) better. But this is a UI thing, I certainly am not particularly good at evaluating the economic implications of that choice versus this one. Additionally: is it genuinely modeled that we need to do this? As ScottyP pointed out on Youtube, actually the purchasing power of $Ohm has remained pretty solid while everything else dumped big time.

                                Maybe too soon. Same as it was too soon for other proposals.. Let's see all the cool things we can do with our ohm. What if we make the incentive for locking to be permission to multi asset stake or whatever other features

                                Against. I have like comments which closely reflect my opinions