I'd like to know if these rewards are before any bonuses from locking your stake. But I am also for more sustainable yields.

    I am for this. Reducing APY will have a stabilizing effect on price and also make bonds more attractive which will help the protocol in the long run.

    In principle, I agree that it is the right move for the protocol, to be sustainable in the future. I've a couple of questions 1) Is this a 1st step towards gradual reduction of APY? If yes, then what is the eventual target APY and what would decide the eventual APY 2) If, in the future, we cross the 200 days runway (say we've 250 days runway at the reduced APY), then would the APY be increased?

      It sounds like a harsh reduction on the surface, but after popping 0.5% rebase into the calculator it's not too bad. Especially with the increased price stability, and potentially upside from reduced selling pressure by whales, it should bring.

      In favor.

      Plus locked staking will likely offset much of it for those of us willing.

        I fully support this proposal. If voted on, would the 3 week reduction begin immediately or on a set date? Thank you for your tireless efforts, team.

        ChadwickTheCrab rewards amount and locked staking are a bit independent; locking won't change amount of rewards emission, only how that # OHM is distributed per epoch.

          Ananth imo we shouldn't have a target APY, only target rewards rate and runway.APY was good for bootstrapping, but now we need to focus more on bonding and attracting external capital, which requires more stability and lower emissions.

              Im for the reduction, but can it be a little further down the line? Starting in August or September?

                In favor of this proposal, glad to see alignment in comments thus far and grateful for the hard work of the policy team in putting this plan together.

                SpacemanJeff I could be wrong but my understanding is that the reduced rewards rate that is being discussed here would be the max rate in regards to the max locked staking time domain. So if/when locked staking is launched and hypothetically everyone locks for the maximum time domain, the APY would be the the 20-23k discussed here. Again I could be wrong but just reading the posts and comments, that is what I gathered.

                    I'm in agreement. It would be nice if we could wait a month before we start the reduction though. Let the FOMO set in.
                    Also how does this relate to the increase in APR/reward for locking staking? Will there be further reduction to the APR/reward when locked staking comes out or is this it? And then locked staking will be a better APR/reward?

                    Overall I'm also greatly in favor of this proposal. But we do have to keep a tight eye on people unstaking and selling. 20K APY is still a great return for a relative safe farm. But greener pastures are definitely around although at higher risk levels. We might see some turbulence in the coming weeks because of this? Maybe a slower decline in APY helps to ease into new levels? But at the same time three weeks is an eternity in crypto and we are at a unique position at the moment of already having had a big sell-of and new partnerships coming to fruition.

                    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?

                    I think with the other potential improvements (such as transferable sOhm and Rari) coming down the road we will have more incentives to keep people 3,3 without the need for a monster APY.

                    Just my 2,2

                      I agree, but i think it needs to come with an easier buying/guide proces for people New to crypto in order to grow. The current userbase hasn’t got enough time to bring people/friends to the protocol. The staking currently is a great usp to bring New people into the comunity and stir A hype in order to create more liquidity. I would suggest lower the rebase while giving people the option to lock their staking for a couple of months/year to regain the 0.6 that they initially got in on. Transparancy is key in this fase.

                      @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

                      • _mp_ replied to this.

                        uliner It doesn't just increase runway in the moment, it also makes us cash flow positive and should increase runway further over time. Essentially less spending + same revenues => more treasury == more runway over time as well. In favor of this proposal 🙂

                          In favor of this proposal since it improves the long term fundamentals of the project.