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)

Zeus Noted.

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.

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.

qbd 400% is only the boost though.

balotelli45 You are correct, I re-read that part in the begining. Thanks for the clarity.

qbd agree with the last point made. Let the coin cycle again. That would be the right time for implementation.

Zeus Correct me where I'm wrong (I'm smoothbrain). So this will reduce our APY to roughly 1500%, however if we lock/stake 2 OHM for 12 months, the 450% boost will essentially act as if we originally staked 9 OHM?

What is the game plan if locking gets voted down?

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.

still not with this proposal, I think an increasing reward multiplier over time is a much better incentive, and you lose the multiplier if you unstake, but unstaking is required to claim rewards. No lock.

I think locking will scare more people than it will attract since the crypto space is fast moving. The goal is to grow the protocol and the treasury and maintain maximum flexibility for participants, from my personal feeling, I feel like running away from this form of locked staking, it basically removes all flexibility and just turns the project into a "term deposit".

I have locked funds in bifrost.finance, however they provide you with a synthetic asset in exchange for ETH you get vETH in exchange, and there is a market for vETH and can be traded. As an alternative, if everybody is so fixated on locked staking, there could be a way of trading sOHM locked staking positions? Such as an NTF like Alchemist where the subscription are tied to the NFT, so you can trade the NFT and someone else gets your position. Or UNI V3 nft for example.