Sorry, this proposal needs some clearer explanation - there is an emotional burden associated with a tag such as "ultra short-term staker/speculator" ... but what is the sober perspective?

Block number for epoch end: 12800000
Epoch rebasement yield: 0.5%

Ultra-short term strategy:

  1. Buy OHM from liquidity pool at block 12799998 for 100kUSD, swap fee @ 0.3% = 300 USD
  2. Stake OHM at block 12799999, receive rebase yield @ 0.5% = 500 USD
  3. Sell OHM to liquidity pool at block 12800001 for 100kUSD, swap fee @ 0.3% = 300 USD
    ==> Net loss for staker: -300 USD + 500 USD - 300 USD = - 100 USD
    ==> Net gain for DAO/community: +300 USD - 500 USD + 300 USD = + 100 USD

This "parasitic behavior" is actually net positive for DAO/community, and net negative for the ultra short term staker !?

If (2 * swap fee) > (staking yield) then warmup period is bad for DAO/community.

    bubbidubb Furthermore, warm-up period is a negative for bond demand.

    Investors are likely to have a set allocation to Olympus, and people are likely shifting funds between staking and bonding.

    If staked ohms become burdened by warmup periods, then these ohms cannot be shifted and locked into bonds.

    Warm-up is detrimental to demand for OHM.
    Warm-up is detrimental to demand for bonds.

    I agree that we should look into how much of a problem this really is before doing anything drastic. As others have pointed out, the shortest-term stakers (1 rebase) probably end up contributing more to the DAO via entry and exit LP fees than they get through the rebase.

    It effectively kills the strategy of multi-bonding if we go through with it, but maybe that's not a big enough contribution to the treasury to be worth considering. Beyond that, it DOES dampen the appeal of rolling single bonds, and adds an extra transaction, but I guess doesn't ruin the strategy entirely.

    The best case scenario with this seems to be that we would be setting it for long enough to deter certain people from buying altogether. Which sure, it might stop a few of them, but all it does is guarantee that the rest will be getting a larger minimum amount from the protocol before they pull out anyways.

    If someone has a short-term mindset we'd want them out sooner with fewer rewards, not force them to enjoy more of the benefits of the protocol before leaving.

    I am not sure I agree with a set staking period unless there is advantage to it.
    My understanding of a set staking period was to encourage ohmies to stake for longer
    and I understood this would add stability + maintain liquidity for the protocol
    Thus I would prefer to incentivise staking longer - no disadvantage for short term staking but give a 10% advantage if you stake for a week.

    Zeus not for it, I think others have explained the reasons why is should not happen. Especially being detrimental to the bond market. The growth of the protocol is about the velocity of capital inflow into bonds, which increases backing, and increases price stability though expanding liquidity (LP, SLP). Increasing the return on LP, SLP bonding will do more for price stability than this proposal, as it increases depth in the AMM. Any type of punitive measures such was what is proposed with reduce capital inflow, including but outside of this scope "Locked Staking". Looking as though this is another inevitable step - call it an experiment and be ready to roll it back if necessary.

    I think we should keep it at 0. Part (one of the biggest imo) of what makes OHM work is the dopamine hit from rebasing instantly...personally speaking it makes me more addictive to saving in OHM than in BTC.

    Also having more and more features to prevent easy access to money goes against the idea of a currency.

    It needs to be current. Easy to access.

    We already have locked staking coming which is the equivalent of a high interest saving account. I think that should be sufficient to reward long-term 3,3er's over short-term.

    Edit: Also, when does the warm-up clock start?

    From initial stake of naked OHM or from each rebase of sOHM?

    Glad to see this moving forward. 1 week is a solid number. When? Well I am not sure there is an ideal time. The soner the better.

    shpa97 @Mitarai I agree with you both, imho we should see if there's some data about how many short term stakers / buy-in and sell out traders there are, and what good/harm does it do overall.

    Unless there is a specific reason for implementing this, which I don't see, then I think we should hold off.

    Looking forward to locked staking though 😃

    bubbidubb This point, on the net good for Olympus and net bad for scalpers, is very important to understand and recognize in order to have an informed discussion on a warmup period.

    In this case, there is no downside from leaving the initial staking rewards as is, and their is potential downside from implementing a warmup period.

    If the stake, rebase, unstake and sell is actually still a problem, then I think 1 day warmup period would be enough to solve it, seeing as to how much the price can fluctuate in one day.
    As mentioned in some posts then the UI experience will be important so new stakers will understand they are still gaining rewards during that time. It could even have a note saying that the reason for it is to discourage people from staking and immediately unstaking/selling after a rebase.
    Also wonderying if locked staking with boosted rewards will help solve it…

    Some great thoughts here. Just to provide mine personally:

    Largest benefit is this enables hades for staking, not so much the USTS filter.
    Higher warmup could reduce frequency and viability of bonds, raise costs for treasury. (This is important and was brought to my attention in response to this proposal)
    This shouldn't be looked at in the same lens as locking, though it would have a similar effect to a small degree.

    Note that compounding starts the moment you enter warmup, and we'd be sure to make that clear to end user.

    Imo 1 epoch warmup is ideal. This accomplishes the tangible benefits (hades) and reduces costs as much as possible. I put many options on the poll because i think good polling enables choice as much as possible (curating options = altering opinions), but i personally don't think more than 3 days should be considered, let alone 7+.

    Also note that this is adjustable, so I think it'd make sense to start at 1 and we can always extend it in the future (extending only effects new stakers. Those in warmup already would retain the same warmup length they signed up for).

      Echoing Zeus' point about the ill-effects on bonding - I too am a fan of 1-3 epochs & not more for the warmup.

      Zeus Is there any way to enable the Hades functionality without at least a 1 epoch warmup?
      If not, I agree that the warmup period of 1 epoch is the best option.

      • Zeus replied to this.

        Fulano technically yes, but it kind of defeats the purpose (those using it will stand out when the point is that they blend in)

        Zeus does the warm up start from when naked OHM is staked or everytime a rebase happens?

        on my reading it is at every time it rebases. and what I am learning here is that a 1 epoc staking would help the protocol
        longer than that is not particularly helpful. Esp when we have long term staking around the corner.

        We would have to consider what this does to bonders. Like what @Zeus mentioned, raising the warmup period more than 1-3 epochs would reduce viability of bonding to staking (1, 3) as a strategy (note that this is the reason why treasury has been going up in the first place).

        Personally, I think 1-3 epochs warmup period is enough.

        Zeus A single Epoch makes sense. Bonding is protocol growth, creating financial frictions will impede this process.

        If hades for staking can be implemented with 1 epoch warmup then I think that's what we should go for. No need to add any extra useless friction imo.