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.

            Quoting from the proposal: " It is preferable to continuously match the growth of the protocol with the growth of supply through the reward rate…" I couldn't agree more. Which is exactly why a continuous miniscule algorithmic adjustment in reward rate is infinitely preferable to this bumping-down-the-stairs approach we've been taking since the early days.

            Kelsey I hear you fren. But being caught off guard means that someone didn't take the time to understand what was agreed in August.

              Hey relative new OHMie here. First thanks for your proposal and data work @shadow ; I've found your dashboards to be extremely helpful in developing a data driven view of what's happening in the ecosystem.

              I'm in favor of the continuously lowering the APY over time to put OHM on solid long term footing. However, there's one aspect of continuously lowering APY that bugs me:

              • new users for OHM and OHM forks often join because of the eye popping APYs. only later after digging into the bonding and LP dynamics, do they truly appreciate the depth of what OHM is doing. reducing APY too early before OHM establishes some insurmountable advantage risks new potential members joining other credible forks like Wonderland because they offer 70,000% APY. I think this community deeply understands that high APY != high returns due to price fluctuations and inflation, but most new users won't. Does reducing APY too early increase momentum in competing protocols, and risk ceding market share in an environment where the risk and fall of different projects can be spectacularly fast? In some ways - getting big feels like it has negative game theory externalities attached, making new investors jumping into the space naturally favoring newer credible protocols with higher APYs going through the bootstrapping phase
              • I'm new and I don't have a super good answer re: how to balance reducing APY vs attracting new users into the ecosystem. I'm suspecting this has something to do with hitting some critical mass of branding and generating new revenues streams from LP fees, Olympus Pro, incubator and more, but I'm curious as to how you and others are making this tradeoff

              Thanks again for all the hard work; I appreciate it and appreciate you

              I still can't beliebe we are debating this ngl 😅

              And yes i am new and my DCA didn't go that well but for the love of god i still i can't believe people are complaining about 1000-500% APY on the original DAO, 9 months post launch, that actually has a chance to make it LT.

              davegoldblatt This might not be correct, but it is also not incorrect. For me its a lot about the runway. We have ATM 370 days for runway until there is nothing left.
              To go to 1K% is .point 1 still fucking awesome and .point 2 lengthening the runway .point 3 serious money might like a 1K% more than a 7K% APY

                shadow Im all for it then. Think of it this way guys. Once the apy gets reduced then sell pressure also decreases. This means price will go up. So nothing really changes. Except the protocol gets stronger. This is healthy for us all.

                All the best.

                  mtsireud I think it's true. The success of OHM has always been (3,3), thus holding the price in order for the protocol accumulating assets. This has always meaning largest holders and longterm holders not selling their bags. Reducing APY meaning less ohms are minted for short term stakers to sell therefore preserve the price.

                    Will the rate adjustment ever go back up? The amount of Revenue the treasury needs to generate is never going to go down, and Olympus has always been an excercise in walking close to the edge. I am all in favour of finding ways to make the protocol more sustainable, but the rebase rewards are what make Olympus DAO, and one of the main premises is that: Rebase rewards will always outpace price volatility, given a 365 day window… So in my mind, we should be wary of sacrificing the ecosystem incentives

                      asho

                      Commenting on this and any other "it's not fair to new stakers who are in the red."

                      According to the gainz spreadsheet, the worst day someone could have bought in currently was Oct 26. Lets say they bought 100 ohm at $1,200, for an investment of $120k.

                      Today they would have rebased their way to 200 ohm, but at a price of 430, meaning their stack today is worth 86k. Ouch, right?

                      By next Halloween, looking at the (rebase will outpace volatility given a 365 day window), Even at a $ 300 price point, their stack would be worth 450k. Thats about a 4x increase, and saying that price goes down.

                      So any argument of what olympus 'owes' to its investors about promised gains. One, nothing was promised, two, no one is owed, and three, even voting to pass this oip which lowers APY a little sooner, people are still going to make incredible returns on their initial investment.

                      I say this as someone who bought at the end of october and is currently -25% on my investment here

                          Introvertices Im with you Ohmie. Dont think I used the words 'fair' or 'owed'. I just know that the APY is why people buy OHM, so we shouldnt be too hasty to contract the juggular vein. I bought in at the bottom of the market crash so im calm, gonna keep adding too. I also know that OHM is a claim on the future so no short termism here either. 3,3.

                          • SAA replied to this.

                              Thinking long-term is what we need to do in order to ensure OHM retains strong value. It is more important to keep the treasury strong than to weaken it to compensate short-term investors. Lowering the APY will provide a longer runway which will also help attract more serious investors and other organizations who want to adopt OHM as a trusted value-backed protocol.

                              Consider that even 1000% APY will provide gains by the end of 2022 for anyone who is current at a loss (assuming market value of OHM stays close to $300+, but keep in mind that OHM is technically only backed by 1 DAI and the protocol will only burn OHM when it falls below that - so there's the possibility that even at a high APY not much value will be recovered if the price of OHM drops to 1 DAI).

                              My previous suggestion was to move the timeline for lowering the APY to 1,000% out 8-12 weeks. I don't think 4, 8, or 12 weeks even matters as long as we ensure the runway stays greater than 365 days (1 year). Eventually, I think this should be pushed even further out to 3+ years as OHM becomes widely accepted as a reference for value.

                              CosmicRadii I'm with you on this. Even with the explanation by DOS this is a more reasonable drop. At the moment the reward is at 5,138.9% so maybe 3000 or 2500 feels more ok. Specially since we are so far from 10milj supply.

                              And i dont pretend i understand everything. Like why is the a runway of 368 so bad? is that not a pretty long time anyway?

                              Not sure if it helps but if we had farming i would much rather have it here. Sorry i'm noob so maybe i ask for silly stuff. But i'm here for the long haul and like to help.

                                shadow not in favor of this, the move to UNI V3 is more important than this. In addition I think LP bonds should be reduced significantly and the some of the treasury funds and yield from one sided bonding should buy OHM and burn from the UNI V3 pools - this is a more efficient use of capital, and it benefits the MC and OHM holders.

                                  asho Unfortunately everyone "vows" to not be short term and understands that this is a long term investment. The truth is that each is looking after their own pocket and running with the gains when they have them…3,3 meant very little to the owners of TWO BILLION TVD, but I guarantee they all talked about it like it was their gospel. At some point when these markets mature, more experienced investors will get involved and less pirates.