@shadow well written. I’m in favor, but would a reduction this significant really only put us at a 200 day runway? Doesn’t feel like superrrr long term planning. Just kicks the problem down the road for a little bit… idk. BUT THAT’S FOR FUTURE US TO WORRY ABOUT. Present me is wholeheartedly in favor
OIP-11: Reducing reward rate
In favor of this proposal since it improves the long term fundamentals of the project.
fakeSavian Why? What's the argument for delaying?
therivshow Yes, I believe you are correct. However, your hypothetical is really dependent on the staking distribution.
JFry4 yep completely agree. Just wanted to make sure people understand that if/when lock staking happens and they lock for the max time, they are not going to get 100k% APY. At any rate, I am 100% in support of the reduction of rewards for the greater good.
Ananth Yes, but the rewards rate is just one lever that affects the APY. As to you earlier questions, in my view everything should be incremental. Make an adjustment, measure its results, discuss, propose, release, rinse and repeat. There is no target APY. Just an end goal. To become Ohmnipresent.
This is the first step in the next phase of Olympus' growth.
- Edited
First of all, thank you for your time and effort. But! Timing is crucial and right now the market as a whole is just too volatile to experiment in such a way - it may as well cause downtrend scenario and massive sell-off. There's so many people out there who have joined at 1000/1500$ + price range and there was huge decline in price already, don't undermine the trust they have in price recovery. When they see those changes and APY decline, they might easily get scared and flee the protocol.
Just a friendly reminder - our strength is simplicity and we're just starting to complicate things in so many ways. Flexibility here is a weapon, not a weakness, there's so many projects out there with thousands of percentages in annual return, this could be a signal for many people to just get rid of OHM and go elsewhere. I believe it's too many changes in short time and zoom out, we could easily get rid of the attention of newbies out there wanting to join Olympus because of too many obstacles we willingly choose to accept.
We should focus on our strengths and improve them, do not implement too many regulations here cuz it can easily become a dead end for us.
I know it has different mechanism and purpose but I suggest we implement a new way of looking at bonding mechanism. I know it increases runway but I suggest we could copy what central banks do. What if we could issue more bonds whenever the price rapidly decreases and stimulate the demand by provided supply at the discounted rates. More people would buy bonds and price would increase since there will be more buyers, new ones or OGs. CUZ IT'S CHEAP! Bonding mechanism could adapt to market situation and stimulate the price. Right now I say we have no weapon in case the market is against us. Maybe burning of tokens, but it happened like one time, or am I wrong?
Then we can focus at runway again. It can be a tool for price stimulation as well in case its needed. And it's just one idea, different approach. We don't really have to sacrifice all the advantages we have over the others. Simplicity and flexibility here is a strong weapon and we could communicate it to the world this way, it doesn't have to be a weakness.
See, this is a different approach, just focus on our strengths and don't overcomplicate things because, ego aside, people can easily go elsewhere, cuz there's plenty of options in DeFi where you can stake your tokens without locking periods, regulations, volatility and still earn thousands in APY. Why would they stay if they're scared they loose money, cuz they entered at 1400$, market is in consolidation, OHM experienced a huge price decline, we present them they would have to lock up their earnings and now we propose APY decrease? I know you aim stability but that's something you can't explain the majority which trust is probably undermined already. And what for? Trust for 6 weeks in runway? Nah, that's not a good deal, we have to come up with something else.
This concern is backed by one OHM OG, who wants to get out of the project because of this all and I know this is not the only one thinking the same. We may not be the majority even though we expect everybody thinks the same. It's just another bubble we live in. Most people doesn't read forum, doesn't even read properly, probably haven't got a clue they could even vote. And when those people figure out they have to lock up their earnings and get massive decline in APY, well, I don't think 3, 3 is sustainable anymore. Are we the majority here right now or not? I believe not.
Just thing out of the box, it may improve the protocol in long term, but explain it to someone loosing his earnings. Timing is just not good. It could cause a massive sell-off.
#MakeItSimpleAgain
I think it's important to look at things from a zoomed out and longer term perspective. It is good to remember that we are very very early to this protocol. It has been live for only 100 days. It is also important to realize that rewards are simply coming at a slightly reduced rate; look at it like this, the same amount of rewards are being paid out just over a longer time frame. This extends the life and viability of Olympus DAO within the DeFi space. This is good for the protocol. If you own OHM tokens and participate in the protocol, then this is good for you. All you gotta do is stake for slightly longer to get the same amount of rewards that, before, you were going to get in a shorter time frame.
Olympus is designed to capture value. That is what the treasury is, it's a black hole for money, and the longer it exists, the more money it will absorb. The more money the treasury absorbs through bonds, the brighter brighter our horizons become; the bigger the treasury, the further investors (big and small) can see into their future with us, therefore, the further we are able to see as well. Lowering reward rate (as this proposal would do) immediately extends our runway, AND also causes all the money that comes in from here on out to have more extension power.
I'm sorry that your wallet is down right now, but I personally see no adequate reasoning to be against this proposal in your post. It seems mostly based in emotion and that is not the right motivation for altering (or not altering) a protocol. This proposal has come out of a lot of care and thought for this protocol. If it passes, it could (speculative) push some people away, but it will (non-speculative) do numerous beneficial things for the protocol itself. We immediately get an increased runway, and all bonds now extend the runway longer than they previously did. What i'm saying is, I haven't seen any non-speculative reasons for being against this proposal, and I see multiple non-speculative reasons to be in favor of this proposal.
Anschel Timing is crucial. If anything doing this when the market is a bit sideways may be the best timing for us. It'll hopefully allow us to see what effects this change has without BTC dragging us up or down.
One could argue that ridiculously high APY already scares people away.
I think this is the first time I've heard anyone call Olympus simple.
Bonds are sold at a discounted price, so I'm not sure how this would increase price. However, if you're serious about this idea discuss it in the Discord, polish it, and turn it into a proposal for the forum.
What is being proposed is still 20K APY... Where are the other projects in Ethereum DeFi with this high APY, liquidity, market cap, community, partnerships, and well known crypto backers? If that exists elsewhere then I'm game to check it out.
Finally, this isn't going to achieve stability. It's a step in the right direction, but we won't achieve it with one step. This is the first step towards becoming Ohmnipresent. This has been the plan all along.
MrMochi Bonding can become more attractive through this proposal but at a lower APY we'll have to see if people actually 3,3 afterwards. If not we might see significant downward pressure of people bonding 5 days and then selling their arbed Ohm?
Every bond also extends the runway though, so if people are bonding and selling, they are taking a small short term profit (sell pressure), but they are giving up their rewards to the treasury and the stakers. This extends the runway and in turn potentially makes market buying and staking more desirable. (buy pressure)
I am in favour of this proposal as it is well overdue.
It's easier to market a sustainable APY for longer periods of time.
Super High APY with an unlimited supply most probably only works well with 3,3 holders. Governance and implementation of this model seems to be working very well so far and I am only new here so I hope this lasts well into the future.
In favor of this proposal. It does not hurt to experiment and if anything, we can always revise the parameters.
- Edited
Dudemyguy
I understand the reasoning for a longer more drawn out runway and I am in complete agreement. But I feel we should have proposals touch on multiple issues while changing one of our levers.
I think lowering the APY does not save stakers, not even in the long run. We'll extend our runway a little bit but also at the cost of people unstaking and selling their Ohm. People should be drawn to Ohm staking because it can be an easy way to farm. Staking Ohm is a bet that the protocol can capture more value over time than your original DAI. Making bonding more incentivized helps but doing it too much makes stakers vulnerable. I also think it's partly an UX issue with people not bonding enough.
Recently I think Malt was an interesting experiment which blew itself up. It attracted people for Ohm-like monster APY. Then the peg was reached and APY dropped to a paltry 200% APY. Which caused a bank run on the protocol and completely destroyed the peg. We might have a floor but that floor can be eroded over time as well.
Either way I'm digressing, most of this is not relevant to the proposal. I still support it, we have to experiment and see what works and what doesn't. Right now runway is decreasing which is a major issue. So short term lowering the APY is great as we look for more ways to capture value and increase the treasury. I think this is definitely a good step forward.
I think that this is the right approach in order to make the project sustainable long term. At the same time I think it’s important to describe the vision holistically, including the partnerships in the works and others to come, along with anything else. This to say that the extreme focus on apy and price could make us all miss the bigger point: what we need is an ultimate use for OHM and large scale adoption, that is the problem to solve for. I trust the team that we have in charge of this and appreciate the openness of the debates.
In favor. Extremely high yields should be reserved to locking/bonding for sustainable growth.
JFry4 while we are all here for the good of the project, I think we all have the intention of collecting as much OHM as possible. Keep the high apy for a couple more months is a reward for us early adopters and incentive for new comers like it always has been.
fakeSavian people will say this exact same thing in several months when we are out of runway.
abipup Mute point. The vote is now. The vote wont be in serval months and theres enough runway to facilitate 2 more months.