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??
OIP-11: Reducing reward rate
abipup So the APY for locked staking could be higher??
Revolutionary_Mang033 Let's talk in OIP-9
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.
yeah man!
- Edited
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.
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.
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
I'm for, if the only other option is Do Nothing. However, I would suggest the community discuss what is the end-goal emission rate. Is even a 0.35% too high to create the goal of stability?... in other words, by lowering the reward rate just a little, but not enough, is the proposal only making the problem worse?
Chrysus33 - I do not think this qualifies as a "rug pull"
JaLa actually made a great comment today, I wanted to transfer here:
It may be helpful to look at this from a risk perspective rather than rewards. Flip it around and ignore number go up and utility. The risk of holding OHM is very different today than it was in March. The protocol now needs to pay you less to hold it becuase the risk of going to $1 tmrw is now much smaller. The market now requires a lower rate of return.
All credit to @JaLa
Thanks @Don_G_Lover.
Just to add (I've stated this publicly but want to post it here as well): This isn't a rug pull by any means. If you were a long-term staker, this should not impact you much over that time frame. The total amount of rewards being given to stakers is not changing, they are just being dripped out more slowly to sustain the runway longer. Greater sustainability will ultimately lead to more profits for the protocol and more rewards for the long-term stakers.
Consider an extreme scenario for a moment: Today the protocol has ~ 5.5 million DAI worth of treasury assets (at risk-free value). What if the the protocol gave it all to stakers in one rebase? We'd all get get 15x more OHM. That would be awesome! Everyone would be rich, right!? The fly in the ointment, however, is that there would be no more rewards to give out to stakers and therefore no incentive to hold. There would be a race to unstake and sell (-3,-3) and we would quickly hit floor value. Not only would we not be rich but we'd all probably be worse off than we are today,
Though it may not seem like it, we are too close to that extreme scenario today. The rebases are too high, which is doubly negative: a) people can basically live off of dumping their rebases and b) it means a shorter runway and less confidence in the viability of the protocol. Slowing rewards moves us along the spectrum to a more comfortable and safe place where we can continue to grow profits for months and years to come. I really believe anyone with mid-to-long-term staking aspirations will be far better off.
Chrysus33 Just something to think about....if you bought 1 OHM today (6/26/2021) for $300, with a 0.5% reward yield from today onward, in a year's time you would have 196 OHM. Here are a few OHMUSD scenarios for how much that 196 OHM would be worth:
$300: $58,876
$150: $29,438
$50: $9,813
I'm not going any lower because it's likely the risk-free value of one OHM in late-June 2022 will be about $50...but even if OHM somehow dropped below the RFV per OHM, you'd still break even at $1.53 per OHM.
Hey guys new OHMi here.
I have noticed the ROI (5 day rate) decreasing and wish to know what date is the end of the 3 week reduction and what will be the final ROI?
Mattdpirate Read the post
Mattdpirate I believe the 3 week reduction has already passed, and last week we saw the target .50% rebase and 20k APY.
You do raise the valid question of what is the expected settled ROI or whether there is a predicted continued drop down to another figure?
Today we're currently at 0.4645% with an APY of >16k
Thanks Redhairedguy,
I think the 0.35 reward rate was estimated to achieve the 20K APY and 0.5 rebase rate. Which now that we are at 16k APY has shown may have been a bit aggressive.
I think everyone who was voting on this would have voted on being close to 20K APY (0.5 Reward Yield). Perhaps the reward rate should have been the variable to maintain a constant APY? Once 20k APY was achieved the reward rate was then fixed and held constant.
Surely the 16K APY is much lower than expected by everyone and if actually intended to be closer to 20k APY an adjustment of some sort could be made?