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.

          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