fakeSavian sorry, not sure I understand what you're saying. We should definitely not wait to execute this for 2 months when we have run the runway way down.

fakeSavian keep in mind that slowing reward rate doesn't immediately increase the runway. It's a second order change to the rate at which we consume or add to the runway.

fakeSavian Nah, dawg. I'm not intentionally missing the point, but I am missing it 😅.

I thought you were arguing for delaying the reward rate reduction until August/September?

Anschel

I agree. I say let the price go back up towards $1400 and onwards and then introduce these proposals.

    Honestly, it seems like a slow closing of the door by people who were in early to those who just arrived at great expense...

    I want to see a debate between the people saying it's unfair to new people, and the people saying it's unfair to the OG's.

    I am a simple degen in awe of the brilliance of Ohmies. So to me there's some things unclear; I would like to see a clarification on how slashing the reward rate will interact with locked staking. Is the rebase rate of .50% and an APY of 20k+ based on normal staking (so with booster of locked staking, this would be higher??) or is this the maximum amount that can be gained with locked stacking for a year?

      ngnoff increasing price really isn't our intention here or anywhere else in the DAO. We aim to stabilize the price and ensure a sustainable future for staking.

        Revolutionary_Mang033 I can say with 100% certainty that the 20k APY we'd see with slowed rewards rate staking is not tied to the APY we could see by locking for 1 year.

        I can't say with any certainty here what exactly the APY would be for 1 year locking. We can discuss more about it in OIP-9 if you want!

          Anschel Also agree with a lot of points here. why can we not start with locked staking first and then see about this later down the line??

          abipup

          I understand that increasing price isn't the intention. The point I was agreeing to was that some of us went in close to ATH (all time high) and so implementing these proposals now will negatively effect people that bough OHM at ATH where as if they are implemented from $1400 upwards then it won't negitively effect OHM holders.

          Additionally, Imagine proposals are introduced today while someone locked their funds into OHM / FRAX LP for 1 year. They would be very angry.

          • _mp_ replied to this.

            ngnoff You own a share of the market cap, you win/lose depending on the direction it goes. Keeping the APY high attracts -3,-3 whales who stake for one week and dump for a quick 20%, as we've seen last week. Based on actual past data, this is hurting our market cap and all 3,3 ohmies. Arguments were given in the proposal as to why lowering the APY should be good for the protocol's health (better for bonds, stability because of increased predictability, makes establishing partnerships easier...), and for our market cap directly (less inflation, less short term -3,-3).

            I don't see anyone here giving arguments as to why keeping the APY high helps the protocol in any way, all I see is an emotional attachment to "number of ohm goes up". I do feel sorry for the people who bought the top on ohm and lost money in the crypto market downturn (some of these people actually helped tremendously in designing the proposal that you see above btw), but please don't let it cloud your judgement. This is the only way forward if we want the protocol and ohmies to thrive long term, which I believe is what we all want.

              _mp_

              I do own a share of the MCap, I do accept that I win/lose depending on the direction. But when these kind of proposals come out of the blue and people want them to be implemented immediately, then it will scare people a way. If they were part of a timeline, it would have been a different issue and people (including myself) would invest accordingly.

              Regarding the proposals, as I stated, I'm not against them. They are good for the project and to get investors going forward, But I think upon giving notice to the community, they should be rolled out slowly say, from August onwards.

              I am happy to vote for these proposals if they're to be rolled out after a couple of months.

              I am against doing this. Not without announcing it to the community well in advance. If we came in early... we are fine. However, what about the people who recently jumped in with the promise of a high APY? A cut off must be announced. A a plan set in place to make good on people who who might've recently jumped in just to have the APY pulled from under them.

              It is a little bit to late for this. That ship has sailed. -> "skewing the benefits of the protocol towards early adopters, which is not what we want...."

              Clearly the APY is unsustainable and it will need to come down for the good of the project. But it can't happen at the expense of recent Ohmies.

                Anschel Thank you. You are exactly correct. This is a PR nightmare in the making. You can't rug pull the APY from people who entred at top... and then turn around shill "3, 3" to people.

                  Can you give me any benefit to do this in say 3 months instead of 3 weeks? I can't find any reason why this would be better ..

                  Chrysus33 it has been announced for some time that the APY needs and will go down.
                  Keeping the APY high will hurt newcomers and the protocol.

                  As for delaying this decision it will only hurt as even more and scare possible new OHMies that will see there is no runway left. People that were here at the beginning had it pretty rough (I am not one of them), would you join Olympus if there was only 2 weeks runway? That is a huge risk