full send, can we just scattershot this pretty please???
OIP-9: Locking
- Edited
I wonder how much locking in scares off people not too familiar with the project. I am also wondering if just "length of time you have staked" is enough to base rewards off. So the longer you have staked, the more rewards you get. If you unstake, your reward multiplier gets reset. The multiplier could also be slow moving too, so it takes a while to get the bigger rewards.
A positive thing about the staking right now is that you can unstake at any time, I just wonder if that makes people trust the protocol a bit more.
Might be worth looking into Pickle Finance and their DILLs, they use a set lock up time. As a personal anecdote (I am just one person) I wasn't too sold, especially when I wasn't familiar with the project. I'd want to of course get the most PICKLE rewards, and the maximum time is a lock in of 4 years although I am not sure I trusted the project enough for 4 years so it put me off. With Olympus it was nice to know I could take my OHM out at any time, easier to support and commit to the project.
- Edited
Considering that I was one of the first to push locked staking, super stoked it's actually getting drawn up as a proposal that most of the Ohmies support and am honored that Zeus used one of my main suggestions about being able to unlock with the penalty of forfeiting your rewards to the pool cause I believe people should always have control of their money. Uber excited for what locked staking is going to do for Ohm once we get more exposure with the Frax deal and have a pool up on Uniswap. 3,3
I am not sure how to feel about this. It introduces complexity as mentioned by many people here. So many core changes in such a short time for a two month project. This going to backfire soon.
I feel people only concern is about others hopping in and out to benefit from rebases but we need to think beyond that instead and work to make this project attracts more people more partnerships and a use case if any.
I surely don't believe in scattershot voting anymore cause it feels it's already been decided even before posting there. So many Qs about these top wallets which could be ran by one guy/team but anyway best of luck 
You can't introduce functionality without complexity imo. We can stay in the simplest form, in return we don't have use case.
- Edited
Quick notes before reading
[English is not my native language so please bear with it]
[I’m pretty new to OHM and I consider myself - dump money]
Basically, I almost completely agree with ''retronym'' - Idea is great but it is coming in a very early stage and if it will go through the implementation is also very fast…
I truly believe these changes will be so significant that it will scare new buyers and potential long term stackers. Especially now when the market is so do speak, ,,down’’ and volatility levels are on the all time high. Lot of new people are now discovering the cryptocurrency as a whole - these newcomers consider these 3 things as the most attractive -
high returns,
no inflation
complete control over your assets 24/7.
By implementing this new proposal in a such early stage will basically make this coin unattractive to new potential buyers. Returns will be limited only for locked staking, inflation will be measured by the whale selling, you will be forced to choose between control or profit.
New money is the key to grown so over complicating things, setting rules and trying to limit accessibility will mean the attractiveness of OHM will be over shadowed by other coins. I completely understand the base question of risk and long term stability. But I truly believe that risk is the part of the success equation of this coin.
Another strong selling point against this proposal [at this time] is that people in the community have still fresh memory of robinhood app not allowing users to sell and withdrawn their assets so there is a possibility people will look at this as a way limiting their options with the assets.
Just to clarify my opinion [if someone is reading it] Idea is great timing is horrible.
On the other hand I completely understand the need of fair rewarding system for lockers vs. the multipliers. The only question is if this is the right time when the mcap is around 50mil. And only now after coinbase allowing to track the coin are people getting familiar with it… Maybe wait for this cycle to be over and test it as an option on the next cycle…
I see this proposal very positive for the protocol, in short:
- Reduce APY to be sustainable long-term.
- Let people lock with different commitments if they want increased rewards
- This has additional benefits, as only the real 3,3 will get high rewards.
- Different commitments means there is multiple unlocks which increases stability.
- Users can decide how much they want to be locked.
I also think now is the time to do this, the rewards are still pretty significant and lets us focus on next steps like integrations with other protocols and push for v2.
Long term we might not need locking if we reach some stability and people can use OHM for loaning and interacting with other protocols. Right now, it's the best for the long term holders.
Sorry but I want to correct you because you seem to be mistaken. rewards will not be reserved for locking, as there will be an unlocked staking option.
also another point, if we don't implement something like locked staking asap, I see it as a massive detriment to the protocol and a possible factor that could lead to this project not making it to the next cycle. You need to understand that with Olympus DAO, it is always about what is best for the protocol, not for individual bags. What is best for the protocol ends up being the best overall, because it is at the very least of no detriment to anyone (best for the protocol means least amount of detriment for individuals).
This proposal is brilliant, and if you take the time to hangout in the discord or this forum and understand the nuance of olympus dao, while also adopting a longer term outlook, you will almost certainly begin to understand how important making these vital changes is now rather than later.
I don't understand how anyone can be making the claim that this is going to "scare" potential new people away with any semblance of certainty. I think this is simply a projection of being afraid for your own bags and/or greedy. This benefits the protocol massively, providing stability and predictability, reducing rebase scalping, reducing emotional capitulation, and giving people more options of how they can interact with the protocol. If you want, you'll still be able to maintain 1.4K+ APY without any locking, i.e. complete composability with your OHM (stake unstake whenever you want). The timing is perfect, we need to move fast to fortify the protocol as much as possible now while it has the fewest users. Get it right early, build a proper foundation, and we can be here for years to come.
For people who consider themselves "dumb money" (you said it first) and who are already in the protocol, then i can see how this is a bit jarring, but you gotta understand, more and more "dumb money" is gonna continue coming whether we do this or not, and if we do it later, there is just going to be more "dumb money" to potentially upset. We need to make changes like this now while we are in trial and error mode so that we don't have to make them when we have 10k more ohmies.
- Edited
This will be much more attractive to new people. I would hazard a guess that it's just not attractive to you because you are already here and are projecting your fear onto potential new users. Just being honest, not trying to be a dick.
This gives multiple new use cases. Firstly, it doesn't make anything more complicated, it simply gives people a few more choices in terms of how they want to interact with the protocol. There will be unlocked staking, and locked staking in varying tiers. Staking can be viewed as a job within the protocol, we are rewarded for keeping currency off the market because that is good for the protocol and what's good for the protocol is good for its users. If we want to commit to keeping currency off the market for longer (locked) we should be rewarded more than those who wish to simply constantly sell their rewards into the market. This isn't a new concept, it is quite similar to a CD (certificate of deposit). The goal of OHM is to be a decentralized central bank, so as a bank we need to offer products which both incentivize protocol fortification and at the same time reward users for their contributions. This proposal does that.
I am for this proposal. In my opinion this change needs to happen ASAP. Without locked staking we can't lower rebase rate significantly without hurting users, without lower APY we can't implement utility for OHM, without utility there will be no demand and without demand price will keep dropping.
I've read through the arguments against it. Here's my take.
Concerns about timing: I don't think there will be a "perfect" timing for the change. Crypto is volatile and you can't predict what's going to happen next. We should instead focus on our own protocol. This change needs to happen sooner than later.
Concerns about driving away new users: We want users who are in for long term. If this change discourages people who plan to profit on short term runs, it's fine.
Concerns about complexity: Well, first of all it's not that complicated. If you want the highest reward, pick the longest term that available. If you want mobility, don't lock up. Also, complexity is not good or bad. What really matters is the functionality.
Alchemist model vs Locked Staking model: It's a valid argument to maintain flexibility for users. I'm not an active user of Alchemist so correct me if I'm wrong, OHM staking offers a much much higher reward rate compared to Alchemist. In order to enjoy such high return, the trade off is to sacrifice mobility. I think it's perfectly reasonable. At the end of the day, protocol functionality dictates what behavior is encouraged.
In my opinion we should focus on what initial terms should be offered and what reward rate should be given. I'm guessing the distribution of terms taken will be quite polarized. I'd like to see more discussion about the math behind.
You misunderstand, it wouldn't go from 100000% to 400%. 450% is the bonus for locking 1 year. The base rebase % would be approx 1.4K%, and the bonus would effectively multiple what you deposit. It's hard to predict exact apy numbers, but there is a chart in the proposal which shows that it would be approx between 1400% and 7200% depending on what you choose (unlocked/locked(and which locked tier)).
I agree with this, this is measured and proper thinking IMO.
Adding to the alchemist model vs locked staking discussion, the alchemist model provides too much flexibility, people who lock should be held to their commitment. With alchemist model, people can just capitulate the minute they get all emotional (very frequent in crypto), whereas with locking emotional capitulation is greatly reduced among those who lock.
This is highly speculative thinking, saying we should wait for another cycle. We have no idea if the price will come back up and all data points strongly suggest it will keep dumping unless changes are made. Please take more time to understand the protocol and approach this from a more protocol centered perspective rather than individual perspective if you are able to do so.
cabanaboy1977 exactly, a scaling rewards system
- Edited
Dudemyguy well MIST allows you to make a judgement- lose reward multiplier that you waited a long time to get or not claim and keep reward multiplier, this so far has kept me in MIST despite of the huge fluctuations in price, where otherwise I would have unstaked. As far as I see, all those in favor of punitive measures and punishment, overly discount human behavior and feelings - these cannot be avoided, just as a chart is really a gauge of human emotion, any experienced technical trader will say this... So any punitive measures or punishment will be reflected in the success of the protocol, it is a inalienable law of nature.
bluesinsoul well said. I agree completely.
- Edited
I am all for locking, especially if the staking periods could be more granulated (into for example 5 or 10 day periods) and span from 5/10 days to arbitrary amount of time, where after 1 year the multiplier is maximized and remains constant. I think that would satisfy some proposal opponents as well.
The flexible staking option could incorporate the continuous APY growth idea, if the staking is continuous, as mentioned above. Of course, the multiplier growth should be capped at X multiplier (for example to the current offered multiple) after X multiples of 5/10 days of staking (for example after approximately half year, so the actual "comparative multiplier growth" would not exceed, for example, the 4 months locked stacking growth).