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.

                  A warmup period is a good tool to prevent unintended behaviour. Some thoughts from my side, also based on community brain playing out in the responses.

                  • I do not follow why that extra transaction is necessary. As I see it an implementation would be possible without that constraint. I would like to hear the technical reason for this decision since I feel like I am missing something. /cc @Zeus
                  • Having longer warm up periods punishes ohmies who help fill the treasury. IMO we want to encourage (4, 4), that is (1, 1) to (3, 3). A single epoch warmup period should be good enough to start with.
                  • My understanding is a bit incomplete about multiple stakes. Say I have multiple bonds vesting and stake vested bond rewards multiple times per day or at least daily. Is the warmup period reset every time I stake anew? Is it only "warmed up" once and then I stake however I like? Does unstaking reset the warmup period? And if so do I need to execute that claim transaction every time over and over again? Maybe a more detailed description of a real world scenario would help my understanding to make an informed decision. If the UX is impacted drastically I would rather vote for no warmup period at all because the cost on the individual would be too high to impose for to me unclear benefits or problems we try to solve right now. /cc @Zeus

                    I have a lot of the same questions xh3b4sd does. And a few more (see below).
                    Is this 'extra' transaction a one time thing like when you first interact with a contract? Or is this every time?
                    If i stake 1 OHM everyday for 200 days and then then go to unstake them 300 days later am i paying this 'extra' transaction fee 200 times each time when I stake? Or just one additional when I unstake?

                      xh3b4sd the whole idea with hades on staking is you have everyone send a "Stake" transaction, where their OHM goes to the staking contract but they receive nothing back. On this tx, they say the recipient of the sOHM. For some it will be the same address that is staking, for some it may be different. The key is that they all look the same. Those who want their sOHM in their wallet then go to "Claim" at the next epoch. The "Stake" and "Claim" transactions must be separate, otherwise it would look no different from a normal transfer (the sender and receiver are readily apparent).

                      Each time you stake you would reset the warmup. However, it's completely possible that you feel no need to claim in the first place. Claiming does not change your reward accrual, it merely transfers the sOHM into your wallet. You earn the same amount in warmup that you do after warmup. So, like in @cabanaboy1977's example, you could stake 1 OHM every day for 200 days without ever claiming the sOHM, and still have the same amount once you finally claim as if you did a claim every single day. The only difference is you do not see the sOHM in your wallet until after claiming.

                          Zeus so in my example when you get to the end of 200 you would only have to claim once (saving 200 days worth of fees)? You won't have to hit claim 200 times either 😀

                            def agree w asfi "showing stakers their accrued but unearned rewards during warm up period in the app will be important." with this, newcomers can still visualize and experience the fun of juicy rewards.

                            wonder if it makes sense to only implement warm-up for direct staking not bonding (claim and stake) since when bonding, you're already kind of subjected to a 5 day warm-up. if so, the trade-offs would be....

                            Direct Staking: warm-up, start compounding immediately but only keep the rewards if u stake past the warm-up
                            Bonding: 5-day vesting, price discount, no warm-up