Hey guys, this is meant to be a warm-up not locked staking already. Are you kidding with any warm-up longer that 1-3 days?!

Love the ohmies feedback (I'm new here! Hey everyone!). I feel this proposal would make more sense if we looked at tiers versus a standard/more broad approach. The challenge is to solve for ultra-short term stakers (USTS). To address the issue, we would need further insight into how often USTS are coming in taking profits and leaving and then at what size does this negatively affect future rewards for future ohmies. Is there a definitive difference in USTS and stakers who simply liquidate and run following 3 days? Tough to answer... It may be worth thinking through size instead of duration. A USTS with $1k doesn't benefit on an absolute basis as much as someone with let's say $100k.

Ideas:
We could introduce tiered warmups based on size (ex. $10k+ 5 day lock, 100k+ 7 day lock, etc.)
Introduce tiered warmups based on size and reward (ex. $100k+ grants 25% of rebase days 1-3, 50% days 3-6, 75% days 7-10, and 100% in days 11 onward)

Questions:
Does size or length matter more? (pun intended)
If length only, what length of warmup would actually deter an USTS?

andrewlias I agree, is ultra short term staking currently an issue? How many often do people stake for less than a week? We should probably collect some data before implementing this.

    Wanted to check if we have some data related to what's the number of users who currently stake for ultra-short period and then unstake.

      andrewlias There might be some misunderstanding, I understood that INSTANTLY upon staking I am 3,3 (rebase in effect - juicy rewards being delivered), just that there are a number of epochs prior to your ability to unstake.

      Question - I have 500 OHM, I add 50 more to my stack, is my entire (550) stack now in warm-up period or just the 50 or can I unstake the 550 in its entirety immediately?

        Doesn’t make sense unless we really have a problem with ultra short term profit takers. Even then, the market will efficiantly adjust pricing of ohm until one cannot take profits from such a move (0.005% oscillation in ohm price every 8 hours).

        Prices of equities/bonds increase gradually before dividends or interest payments and decrease immediately after.

        Ex. a 5% dividend payment results in a 5% stock price decrease. This makes it impossible to profit by buying stocks right before dividends, cashing the dividend, and selling the stocks. I imagine the same will happen with ohm over the long term.

        I also struggle to understand how this is harming (3,3) stakers? If anything a market sell of ohm drives down prices (momentarily) and allows for ohmies to enter at lower prices. Let the market find equillibrium without creating barriers for new ohmies to successfully enter into the ecosystem.

        Any first time ohmie understands that the protocol has a pyramid scheme sounding (albeit with a reserve + backing) design to it. It would be interesting to note how many ohmies would feel hesitant to stake given that they know they’re exposed to significant downside (without rebase) in the ultra short term.

          I’m keen to explore if we can meet the goal here with the locked staking mechanism. Why not just have a lower reward rate for unlocked staking? (say 1-5k APY) And then the envisaged locked staking reward curve commences from 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months etc.

          I do think there is merit in keeping the system as simple as possible for new ohmies.

          Hi everyone,

          If you want to reduce rebase scalping behavior, a warm-up phase of up to 9 epochs makes sense.

          But another thing to consider, is money actually added to the treasury by the protocol buying and selling ohm from ultra-short term stakers.
          On average, are these traders actually profiting and extracting value from the treasury, or are they simply playing a losing game?

          If I understand correctly they buy ohm and stake it for 1 epoch and then sell?

          Zeus I'm in favor of this chage. Would be interesting to see what the current stanking trends are. I think this info that might help wen deciding on the length. Then again, it would only capture a small snapshot. I think so far the big brains at Olympus have steered the ship in the right direction. So I would be inclined to heavily agree with their opinion on the matter. What do you think its agood number @Zeus

            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.