CMill the thought process behind having it like that is 1) to promote responsible behavior (don't lock more than you can afford to have illiquid!) and 2) because it should be a contract. If you sign a 12 month lease on a house, and you want to leave 11 months in, you're still going to have to pay the 12th month whether you like it or not. Your landlord probably isn't going to care that you already paid 11 months worth because you made a deal for 12.
OIP-9: Locking
CMill I would suggest people to have different locks on their stack to prevent these type of situations.
Regarding the proposal itself:
I think it is a good proposal as it addresses multiple issues at the same time:
1) APY reduction and by the same effect Runway Extension
2) 3,3 has a bigger impact with locks
3) Low Time preference behavior is encouraged
4) People get to choose what they want to do. Even if you don't want to lock you get rewards.
I hope that the community will be able to rally behind this proposal and that we can put all these staking/APY discussions behind us and shift our focus back on building.
(3,3)
KirKanos974 Can you elaborate more on why it's an extra level of complexity and fairness?
Agree, as this should drastically reduce sell pressure, anyone who doesn't lock will also have much less OHM to sell. Heavily rewards 3,3's over -1,-1's
Jawesome rewards should be the same for everybody . And adding another layer of contract isn't very appealing for a new stackers. I would prefer small random rebases . Long term stackers would gain more in a the long term (like lock stacking), no discrimination , more flexibility for everybody.
I think this might be a good direction for the protocol but I have some concerns about long term stakers suffering. If you have a 1 year lockup and something outside of someone's control happens 10-11 months into the 1 year, they could end with less than others doing smaller times locked.
Is there anyone to use a multiplier without lock-ups? so longer term holder benefit without punishing users for not predicting their correct window for how long they want to hold.
Also I think this is too quick to rollout, there are probably a lot of US based holders, and this is big Holiday weekend.
I think there should be a minimum of 1 week before we switch the current staking rewards to 0
We need to give users a chance to learn whats going on before switching!!
KirKanos974 While rewards should definitely be the same for everybody, the protocols health is most important. Distribution of rewards through a tiered approach where you can reward long term holders > short term flippers is how you can achieve stability.
Adding another layer of contract has nothing to do with stakers. You will have a clean front-end design that let’s you choose.
- Edited
spacedogGhost agree with last piece, removed the piece about Saturday-Monday, we will give >1 week notice 
having multipliers without lock-ups kinda defeats the purpose, imo the illiquidity is the tradeoff for the multiplier. Lockers should not lock more than they can afford to not have access to for whatever term they choose. You should always have funds on the sidelines just in case. pls no all in sell-the-house 1 year locks ohmies
Jawesome I understand , but i don't understand why cutting sellers short is that important imo? some ppl sell ok lot's of us buy bonds and stake. gradually adjusting he runway is way more important , and utility. I'm not an expert but it's my 2 cents.
I agree with the premise but I think its been done overly complicated and could have unforeseen ramifications.
The 52 week multiplier needs to be exactly what it currently is in the protocol. The shorter the duration, the less the apy will need to be to balance it out.
I think boosts are too complicated for the masses.
400% return on your money in one year in a volatile coin that you would have to be locked in for a year with no rewards for early pull out, is probably not very appealing to the masses.
I think rushing this in when the coin is at the bottom of a cycle is also a mistake. I think you need to wait until the second price increase cycle goes back to $800 (in 45 days or so). If you roll this out and it fails for one of a hundred reasons, you may never get back to success. Predictability is the number one thing the participants need to see.
Let the coin cycle again, the runway will increase automatically, then make drastic changes. The only reason I like this is for long term price stability, but the market will do it for us automatically.
KirKanos974 bonus random rebases bad idea? i remember Zeus talking about it in the beginning.
KirKanos974 current setup is plenty friendly to long term stakers, but it is also too friendly to short term stakers. there should be a tradeoff to flexibility (you earn less)
- Edited
I really like this, I say we do it
qbd 400% is only the boost though.
balotelli45 You are correct, I re-read that part in the begining. Thanks for the clarity.
Locking adds predictability to the system, which is paid for with the multipliers. I, as a locker, am being paid for a service. If I withdraw before I'm supposed to, I really did more harm than good.
That's why I'm in agreement with full rewards slashing for early locker exits.
Choose your locking length wisely. Wholeheartedly agree with @balotelli45 to use several different locking pools to balance risk and reward.
- Edited
I think the overall idea is great but my concern is negative reinforcement. Generally positive reinforcement is always going to be better for people psychologically.
I would tier it that for each additional month you stake you gain an additional boost %. Meaning the longer you stake the more boost you get. If you leave early you simply don't gain as much boost.
You could also make the boost retroactive so once you hit 6 months or w/e you get that amount of boost retroactively backwards.
This would in essence be the same as locking for X days, but there is positive reinforcement to keep staking longer and longer to just get that extra bit of boost.