I think IF OHM's focus is no longer on getting and retaining new retail investors then this is ok (and corect me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that this is the case…the focus has shifted to getting new OHM partners rather than retail investors for growth)

But to be honest I would hold the APY as is if it were me. For the longest time we've talked about how "Price doesn't matter!" but now we are ALSO saying "APY doesn't matter!". It's a hard pill to swallow and I just think the messaging and TIMING for this reduction has to be carefully considered.

  1. OHM forks are still gaining traction with higher APYs and arguably some with higher engagement.
  2. The messaging for how OHM's use case is superior has NOT yet diffused to the masses and hasn't had time to soak in
  3. OHM approved projects had not had the time to prove their worth (KLIMA, ROME)

with all that in mind, really to the average person the only thing they can definitively rely on when investing is the price and APY…

I think we should wait for the migration to be over first and let things settle. This can get very confusing for people. If the migration was 100% completed a month or two ago I'd be ok with voting yes right now.

MaskJiro

Since migration to v2 is under going right now, it's complicated. Dashboard / Dune data seem to have kinda "glitches" atm, and we are not very sure if we have correct data set of the project.

agreed. this is the sort of decision that would make more sense deciding when the data is not fuzzy.

    davegoldblatt Right now the APY is causing tokens to me minted faster than the treasury is growing. This puts downward pressure on the price. No one likes the price falling.

      Doing too much too fast. Rushing this through only benefits the early adopters -- and gOHMers can't even vote. Is this whole proposal some kind of joke?

      I'm in favor of lowering the APY for the health of Olympus, but I do share concerns over doing it too quickly. The V2 migration and confusion over gOHM caused shock among Ohmies and a drastic APY reduction can have the same effect. I'd recommend a gradual reduction that doesn't create unnecessary FUD among token holders who aren't aware of what's happening on the business side.

      IMO, this conversation needs to heavily involve the marketing team to create a plan that anticipates community concerns, especially with the recent price drop already putting people on edge.

        Kelsey I might be wrong but why am I feeling that no comments here matter? Informal poll is saying yes, aka they WILL very likely implement it into the next snapshot so the reduction WILL happen. This is always problem when voting is the mechanism. Imagine 51% for YES and 49% for NO.. the worst case that could happen. This is not binary problem, I hope team will take time to read all comments here and consider next steps carefully, not just based on informal poll because that one is in favour of reduction… I believe this is very strategic move where timing, market, mood of ohmies, every dependency matter… true, also marketing matters…

        and don't get me wrong, I want reduction just like many here, but I do believe right now is not the the right time.. especially when 60k people who joined us recently were said the reduction will happen in 2nd half of January.. it was the biggest topic in TG at least.. disappointment will be there for sure…

          I mean there should be a necessary stop at 3,333% APY ?

          If we reduce, can we ever go higher again if it doesn't bump the price eventually.

          Number go up is important now.

          I see a lot of people wrongly commenting that this proposal isn't in line with OIP-18.

          I'll repeat what has already been said:

          This proposal aims to reduce the staking rewards to the lower end of the current window (window before 10m). It is thus in line with OIP-18 and the plan that was proposed at the time.

            _mp_ Supply is currently at 7.15 million. That's not exactly "the low end" with > 25% to go. Is creating extra turbulence really the ideal option?

            (Asking for clarity, not to be argumentative.)

              _mp_ just like @Kelsey said.. it's totally in line with OIP-18, any value between the boundaries of 1-10M is not breaking rules BUT the thing is that since OHM has started there has almost always exclusively been upper bound value(s)… lowering it to lower bound value for example at 2M would be ok systematically but we're not in mathematical model, there are 80k people with some experience given by the last 8 months with the project… @Kelsey is right, it's a strategic thing.. with very non-empathetic timing… migration, red market, price down, FUD, Christmas coming… what a great present - lowering APY 😉

              so the right question would be, can it wait till 1st week of Jan? or even a week, two later? Take some break guys, enjoy time with families and implement the snapshot early Jan… those 2-3 extra weeks can play very significant role, prove me wrong… show me that doing the reduction asap is the only way to go

                “Stakers, your job is done here. (3,3) over.”

                That’s what it says when we’re dropping APY to the lowest limit while we still have 25% of the APY window to go

                OGs are saying that outright, you don’t have to conclude it really

                We’ve a year worth of runway and we want to double it so the team can chill at the expense of the ohmies?

                And no reducing APY won’t drive price upwards. It only happened before because there were no (worthy) forks. Don’t believe me? See how much bond revenue fell in November (~-80%) as forks proliferated

                My advice to the new ohmies is to vote with their money. OGs know they have enough to force the vote and don’t really care so just return the favor and (-1,-1)

                It's never good time to make big decisions.

                I have had same concerns as many of you during OIP-18 (feel free to check) but the bottom line is that you either believe that this team is doing everything in their power to fulfill Olympus vision, or you don't.

                A month or two doesn't matter if you are here for the longterm. If you haven't held ETH or BTC pre 2018, you might have envyed those HODLing them since, but you cannot comprehend the pain they have been through to get here. OHM is same play imho - it's about supporting big vision that relies on trust, freedom and inclusiveness, but understanding that there are many serious obstacles along the way that can break it.

                All I have experienced so far makes me trust that this team is actively anticipating those obstacles, and steering Olympus towards fulfiling its vision.

                Fully agree with actively using lower APY in marketing communication, and that it's of paramount importance that all staked holders including gOHM must be allowed to vote for OIP-63 @shadow

                  Bigbabol It's always a good time to make big decisions.

                  But it's important to do so wisely, especially with so much at stake (pun intended).

                  I don't have any issue with ultimately lowering the APY, but there are a lot of Ohmies who entered at 2x+ the current price and it seems wise to be intentional about not scaring them away by abruptly changing the rules of the game. If this is a move to help Olympus fulfill its vision, that's gotta be communicated well… which will help maintain trust in the team.

                      Kelsey well discussion is describing it as bad time. It will always impact someone who just joined. Same happened to me only the dip back then was not 2x but 5x. Everyone reacts the same first time.

                      There is nothing abrupt about it. It is a fact based on OIP - 18. There are few calculators available that project it to happen around the same time = end of December mid January. Why claiming its abrupt? If vote passes it will take it additional 4 weeks to reach targeted rate so closer to the end of the January.

                      It's interesting how nobody was complaining that through entire period since OIP -18 RR actually wasn't lowering but stayed constantly in the upper band although supply increased 6 times.

                          Bigbabol I'm just talking about making an abrupt decision that catches the majority of people off guard and creates unnecessary FUD because they weren't expecting the rate to change earlier than when the supply hits 10mil. I understand that the APY won't drop to 1000% overnight. 😉

                              I support this as it will allow the runway to extend 700+ days and that will make the treasury stronger, including what was already said above.

                              However, I think we should consider that it's currently the holidays and some Ohmies staked at 2x the current price. I don't know what the forecast is for expected bonding or Olympus Pro, so I cannot give a better opinion. But my gut feeling is we should extend the timeline for this by 8-12 weeks instead of 4.

                              To address some concerns here.

                              1. You will be able to vote with gOHM
                              2. The reward rate framework describes bounds, we could have been at the minimum reward rate since the start, that was to be proposed by the community (in this case the Policy team). I find it odd how people complain about this range now that we're at the end of it, but everyone was fine with it being at the highest reward rate the whole time?
                              3. Please don't bring up the whole OG vs new people debate. What is good for one group is good for all, as has been proven every single time. Everyone has the same goal - maximizing value to OHM holders.
                              4. "I entered at 2x the price" will always be true for someone. We cannot time it so that it's a perfect timing for all holders. That is why this framework exists, to align expectations and prepare people for a reward rate adjustment ahead of time. This shouldn't have been a surprise for anyone, it's been widely talked about.

                              I'm grateful for the debate here, as always when it comes to these proposals. Your voices have been heard, but if you scroll through the history of previous reward rate proposals it's always the same - "can we delay it a few more weeks", "I am down X% this is unfair", "this is a total surprise", "OGs…".

                              This is always a hard decision, but so far the Policy team has shown we have the best interest of every holder in mind, so with regards to the timing, we believe now is a good time to do it - wrap up the migration and reward rate adjustment and kick off 2022 on a positive note.

                                For those concerned that this proposal breaches the framework set out in OIP-18, it doesn't. It just takes us to the lower end of the framework range given current OHM issuance.

                                For those mentally thinking there would be a step-change reduction in APY once 10m tokens had been issued (which I thought), this proposal is (practically speaking) only a minor adjustment to that model.

                                Assume the snapshot is completed and APY reduction implemented around 27 DEC. A 4 week linear reduction in APY goes into effect, finishing around 20 January. Token issuance drops over the 4 weeks the APY reduction is being implemented, but not that much. We might end up with 8m tokens or so (rather than 10m) by the end of JAN 2022. I am too lazy to do the math right now but it's not that hard to model.

                                My point is only that the change suggested here is both OIP-18 'compliant' and only a modest variation from the mental model most OHMies had likely created for themselves through a casual and inaccurate reading of OIP-18 (a group in which I include myself).

                                So I support this, and I think all OHMies (who want to) can support it without worrying about any contravention of OIP-18.

                                Frankly, I am more concerned about our slow v2 migration, our fragmenting liquidity (as we go cross-chain) and our bond pause. Bonds are absurdly profitable and a great way to grow the community-- from a revenue standpoint they blow away Treasury earnings, LP fees and PRO and they are critical to our ongoing success and user adoption. The sooner we have functional front-ends running for bonding and marketing on every target chain, the better for all OHMies.

                                I've voted no for this proposal at this moment in time as our circulating supply is yet to reach 10m. Whilst I understand we will reach 10m relatively soon I would rather a reduction to 1000% APY be carried out over a short period of time and hence closer to or commence at 10m supply.