OIP-9: Locking

Dudemyguy

also another point, if we don't implement something like locked staking asap, I see it as a massive detriment to the protocol and a possible factor that could lead to this project not making it to the next cycle. You need to understand that with Olympus DAO, it is always about what is best for the protocol, not for individual bags. What is best for the protocol ends up being the best overall, because it is at the very least of no detriment to anyone (best for the protocol means least amount of detriment for individuals).

This proposal is brilliant, and if you take the time to hangout in the discord or this forum and understand the nuance of olympus dao, while also adopting a longer term outlook, you will almost certainly begin to understand how important making these vital changes is now rather than later.

I don't understand how anyone can be making the claim that this is going to "scare" potential new people away with any semblance of certainty. I think this is simply a projection of being afraid for your own bags and/or greedy. This benefits the protocol massively, providing stability and predictability, reducing rebase scalping, reducing emotional capitulation, and giving people more options of how they can interact with the protocol. If you want, you'll still be able to maintain 1.4K+ APY without any locking, i.e. complete composability with your OHM (stake unstake whenever you want). The timing is perfect, we need to move fast to fortify the protocol as much as possible now while it has the fewest users. Get it right early, build a proper foundation, and we can be here for years to come.

For people who consider themselves "dumb money" (you said it first) and who are already in the protocol, then i can see how this is a bit jarring, but you gotta understand, more and more "dumb money" is gonna continue coming whether we do this or not, and if we do it later, there is just going to be more "dumb money" to potentially upset. We need to make changes like this now while we are in trial and error mode so that we don't have to make them when we have 10k more ohmies.

Dan_was_here

Dudemyguy

Thank you for clarifying and giving me another point of view on this. I'm thankful for this opinion and the option to learn. I completely understand the point you are making. My only issue is about the timing which leads us to these questions

Will DAO survive [in this current state] to the end of this cycle? If yes then I would defo. wait with this update till then...
How to maintain a steady influx of new money [also the dumb money like mine]... from my point of view the KISS approach is our safest bet for this cycle...
As I mentioned in my initial comment The change itself is great and I'm 100% down with it and I agree with you on the view of putting the protocol first strategy over the individual gains... but instead of moving too fast I would try a different approach. Let me please try to explain in a few sentences:

I will keep this ongoing cycle like it is but I will prepare some kind of DAO 2.0 section/slider on the dAPP where I will announce these new changes with proper explanation especially to new money [both dump money and smart money] where I would communicate the strong selling point of keeping the protocol stable and long-lasting. With this strategy you can move relatively fast, you will present the upcoming changes in advance so everyone gets prepared with what they want to do, and then I would implement it. I'm here for the long run so I'm ok with locking but I know from my own perspective that the risk of scaring the new potential money is here and ever-present [esspecialy when they compare simple ,,original'' OHM with ,,new OHM'' with presented changes].

thx
Dan

Graz

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.

Dudemyguy

CryptoRadi

This will be much more attractive to new people. I would hazard a guess that it's just not attractive to you because you are already here and are projecting your fear onto potential new users. Just being honest, not trying to be a dick.

This gives multiple new use cases. Firstly, it doesn't make anything more complicated, it simply gives people a few more choices in terms of how they want to interact with the protocol. There will be unlocked staking, and locked staking in varying tiers. Staking can be viewed as a job within the protocol, we are rewarded for keeping currency off the market because that is good for the protocol and what's good for the protocol is good for its users. If we want to commit to keeping currency off the market for longer (locked) we should be rewarded more than those who wish to simply constantly sell their rewards into the market. This isn't a new concept, it is quite similar to a CD (certificate of deposit). The goal of OHM is to be a decentralized central bank, so as a bank we need to offer products which both incentivize protocol fortification and at the same time reward users for their contributions. This proposal does that.

bluesinsoul

I am for this proposal. In my opinion this change needs to happen ASAP. Without locked staking we can't lower rebase rate significantly without hurting users, without lower APY we can't implement utility for OHM, without utility there will be no demand and without demand price will keep dropping.

I've read through the arguments against it. Here's my take.

Concerns about timing: I don't think there will be a "perfect" timing for the change. Crypto is volatile and you can't predict what's going to happen next. We should instead focus on our own protocol. This change needs to happen sooner than later.
Concerns about driving away new users: We want users who are in for long term. If this change discourages people who plan to profit on short term runs, it's fine.
Concerns about complexity: Well, first of all it's not that complicated. If you want the highest reward, pick the longest term that available. If you want mobility, don't lock up. Also, complexity is not good or bad. What really matters is the functionality.
Alchemist model vs Locked Staking model: It's a valid argument to maintain flexibility for users. I'm not an active user of Alchemist so correct me if I'm wrong, OHM staking offers a much much higher reward rate compared to Alchemist. In order to enjoy such high return, the trade off is to sacrifice mobility. I think it's perfectly reasonable. At the end of the day, protocol functionality dictates what behavior is encouraged.

In my opinion we should focus on what initial terms should be offered and what reward rate should be given. I'm guessing the distribution of terms taken will be quite polarized. I'd like to see more discussion about the math behind.

Dudemyguy

bluesinsoul

I agree with this, this is measured and proper thinking IMO.

Adding to the alchemist model vs locked staking discussion, the alchemist model provides too much flexibility, people who lock should be held to their commitment. With alchemist model, people can just capitulate the minute they get all emotional (very frequent in crypto), whereas with locking emotional capitulation is greatly reduced among those who lock.

0xJay

bluesinsoul well said. I agree completely.

Graz

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.

Dudemyguy

SUBGURU

You misunderstand, it wouldn't go from 100000% to 400%. 450% is the bonus for locking 1 year. The base rebase % would be approx 1.4K%, and the bonus would effectively multiple what you deposit. It's hard to predict exact apy numbers, but there is a chart in the proposal which shows that it would be approx between 1400% and 7200% depending on what you choose (unlocked/locked(and which locked tier)).

Graz

Dudemyguy well MIST allows you to make a judgement- lose reward multiplier that you waited a long time to get or not claim and keep reward multiplier, this so far has kept me in MIST despite of the huge fluctuations in price, where otherwise I would have unstaked. As far as I see, all those in favor of punitive measures and punishment, overly discount human behavior and feelings - these cannot be avoided, just as a chart is really a gauge of human emotion, any experienced technical trader will say this... So any punitive measures or punishment will be reflected in the success of the protocol, it is a inalienable law of nature.

KingKorn33

Dudemyguy

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!!

Dudemyguy

retronym

It's not forced, locked is optional. there will also be an unlocked option.

Dudemyguy

qbd

This is highly speculative thinking, saying we should wait for another cycle. We have no idea if the price will come back up and all data points strongly suggest it will keep dumping unless changes are made. Please take more time to understand the protocol and approach this from a more protocol centered perspective rather than individual perspective if you are able to do so.

Graz

cabanaboy1977 exactly, a scaling rewards system

0xJay

Zeus Seems like a well thought out proposal. Great work I am for implementing this.

Cerr

I am all for locking, especially if the staking periods could be more granulated (into for example 5 or 10 day periods) and span from 5/10 days to arbitrary amount of time, where after 1 year the multiplier is maximized and remains constant. I think that would satisfy some proposal opponents as well.
The flexible staking option could incorporate the continuous APY growth idea, if the staking is continuous, as mentioned above. Of course, the multiplier growth should be capped at X multiplier (for example to the current offered multiple) after X multiples of 5/10 days of staking (for example after approximately half year, so the actual "comparative multiplier growth" would not exceed, for example, the 4 months locked stacking growth).

Chochy

pipoctopus -6 months at the current rate and ohm will lose a big part of the tiny community due to FUD.

Graz

Dan_was_here yes I agree, velocity of new capital inflow is the most important factor, more important than any type of lockup/multiplier etc

joejoebiggums

Im against this proposal. I see the need for doing something to prevent short term rebase hoppers from taking advantage of the protocol and also rewarding long term holders more than short termers, but i think the proposal in it's current form goes about it the wrong way. For starters it's way too complex. It's actually not that complex but it is way more complex than it needs to be. Having the smart contract increase rewards automatically is much simpler. Then people can withdraw at anytime and get the reward they deserve, no more no less. Have the rewards ramp up slowly. Why not start super small the first few days and week or first few weeks to discourage super short term stakers. Like only 10%APY for first day, up to 100%APY by first week, and then have it slowly ramp up to that 100k APY only for those that make it to a year or two years or whatever you want the max APY and max time length to be..

Dan_was_here

joejoebiggums completely agree with you on the terms of ,,rewarding long term holders more than short termers''

3enemysun3

I am all for this locking protocol with the proposed percentages and increments. (3, 3) + Incremental LockUp Steroids = much much yes.

jayaaargh

Zeus I've read through the proposal and many of these comments. I can see both sides of why we should and shouldn't be trying this right away. I'd say you're going to have a split down the middle on this type of proposal, but I'm totally fine to try something like this, as long as Id be able to lock up particular OHM for specific months (ie. 10 OHM for 12 months, 10 OHM for 6 months and 10 OHM for 1 month terms).

0xSov

Getting extremely high APYs for almost nothing is just too good to be true. It was fun while it lasted. But please mind even with a 4 year lockup on veCRV price dropped 75% on CRV. Even with a one-month lock on ATOM for staking price dropped 90%. Locking up isn't a guarantee of price stability, especially during a bear market.

« Previous Page Next Page »