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

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.

    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 itโ€™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.

      abipup Mute point. The vote is now. The vote wont be in serval months and theres enough runway to facilitate 2 more months.

        fakeSavian It isn't moot. There will always be those that don't want to reduce the reward rate. Early investors will still be rewarded. Olympus is just asking that they be a little more patient in receiving those rewards.

        Waiting 2 more months just kicks the can down the road.

          JFry4 You're missing the point, i'm not sure if you're doing it intentionally at this point. The vote is now. There is no can to kick down the road if its already been decided to reduce the rewards. The only thing is that it happens in 2 months over the course of three weeks.

            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 ๐Ÿ˜….

            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.