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 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)

    • Graz replied to this.

      I really like this, I say we do it

      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.

      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.

      • Graz replied to this.

        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.

          burb exactly, not into the forced saving plan... the system should have a positive feel good bias

          Zeus This is the system that works, Reward scaling period, and the multiplier increases, to claim rewards you must unstake - and lose the multiplier. No lock period. But a big incentive to remain staked. This is probably enough to shift everything into a favorable direction. Shame I cannot post a screenshot here, but this system works without all the negative vibes. https://crucible.alchemist.wtf/

            As long as its a gasless transition I don't see an issue

            Zeus

            I like what you’ve laid out. I think it makes sense to do this now while the market is bearish. Gives time to make changes to the model as I’m skeptical this will work exactly as intended the first time. I say go for it, learn, and never stop refining.

            Overall into it, everyone has the choice to use it or not and I think plenty of people will.

            One thing we need to manage is a potential supply shock at expiry. If everyone stakes at the same time, then on expiry we suddenly have 72x the OHM back on the market. Potentially people will want to reallocate some of that, price will inevitably take a hit and stability will be out of the window. Additionally other market place participants might sell off in advance of that date which would punish the stakers. It would seem logical with the current set up to race to sell all OHM as soon as it is released in order to buy back lower. I know we want to keep this as simple as possible, but there needs to be incentives or structure to mitigate this.

            Potential mitigations:

            • limiting entrants per day, thus people have to que to enter longer terms, staggering release dates
            • releasing staking rewards in tranches (this is also interesting optionality, give people the choice to take rewards at 3 month intervals or keep them compounding)
            • additional multipliers for rolling over staking rewards into new terms

              Or having an OTC market in place for OHMies to use at expiry rather than crashing the price on the pool

                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.