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

                I am quite confused as for the assumed support in the community for time locking. According to the the latest discussion most of the participating people were AGAINST the time lock - https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/26-oip-6-extended-staking-terms - so how did you get to the point that there is a support for the idea? Please explain.

                Another thing, if 1 year time lock would mean just 4x of initial staked tokens, how can we maintain today’s apy, or even if we would cut the daily rebase to half? It would still mean just 400% apy comparing to current 100 000%.

                Strongly against time locking. All of my arguments were posted in the discussion here:

                  SUBGURU i think its alright to change your opinion on things after the more recent events of last week or so, it would be a good idea for people to voice their opinions again if they have changed (such as mine)

                  Short term people are unstaking and dumping ruining for everyone else who is 3, 3. We can see this from the price drop to 1.4k to 160, During this crucial bootstrap phase we need to incentive 3,3 to draw more people in, more liquidity and more pcv via bonds

                  short term sellers lead to an avalance in sells which can kill a project in its infancy, in 1 year time ohm will look alot different and im sure plenty of people can exit and use it like it was intended a currency for defi without any deterimental effect on the protocol

                  • Graz replied to this.

                      Zeus Sounds great! Do you think an even longer lockup than 12 months would be possible/desirable? Edit: I do personally like Graz's suggestion (aludel model) better. But this is a UI thing, I certainly am not particularly good at evaluating the economic implications of that choice versus this one. Additionally: is it genuinely modeled that we need to do this? As ScottyP pointed out on Youtube, actually the purchasing power of $Ohm has remained pretty solid while everything else dumped big time.

                        Maybe too soon. Same as it was too soon for other proposals.. Let's see all the cool things we can do with our ohm. What if we make the incentive for locking to be permission to multi asset stake or whatever other features

                        Against. I have like comments which closely reflect my opinions

                        I'd be open to locking for even longer than 1 year. Probably up to 4 years a la CRV

                        TLDR;

                        • Against if we design for a currency. For if we design for a decentralized bank.
                        • Against because of KISS (keep it simple stupid)
                        • Long term new large mechanic introduced to a relatively short term growth hack phase introduced problem?

                        It seems this discussion around lockups is linked to the high apy growth hacking phase we are in and thus the solution probably could be viewed as a temporary mechanic to the short term game that has risen. Size of that implementation should be adjusted accordingly and it would also be easier to stomach.

                        With most locking designs it seems we complicate the current value prop as a currency by a lot. To quote a great ohmie 'Your value will be preserved, but only if you don't use OHM as a currency.'

                        With this proposal we add an extra decision loop to every user who wants to use Ohm. Do you want to have your cake or eat it; and at what proportion would you like to eat it in the future?
                        That is a very complicated question to ask and adds friction.

                        As Graz mentioned, maybe vlohm could be tradeable so that the currency mechanics would not be diminished as much.
                        This proposal is put to another light if we step out of the currency value prop and frame Ohm as a decentralized private bank. Ohm represents the shares of the bank and lockuppers provide 'a service' to the bank by timelocking their shares off the market and thus earn a higher percentage of the bank revenue (rev and profit are a bit murky here). In this light this is a great proposal and I'm completely on board with it. Generally locking is used in crypto to lock up shares/productive assets.

                        What to do:

                        Scale down the proposal to a simple that people can stomach "Would you like to lock or not question to the user".
                        Eliminate timeframe from that question by a more simple solution;

                        • The X multiplies by time the assets are idle.
                        • Interim solution to the growth phase. A simple 30-90 days lock
                        • Unstaking cooldown period of 7-14 days to dampen short term volatility.

                          Happy with this, let's do it!

                          Coud yes, but you have to work with human nature/behavior and use it as an advantage. Because unlock will mean dump time - that is human nature. We all want to make money and de-risk, so selling eventually is going to always be a part of it, no matter when the entry point and exit is, now or in a years time. Just not being able to de-risk for a year is a big fear factor, especially in crypto, and it will scare people away, that will ruin the protocol. Reward scaling will work and it avoids the exit>dump that will happen from lockup periods or lets just call them "term deposits".