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.

                  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.

                          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.