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.
OIP-63: Reward rate adjustment
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.
Proposal is to reduce rebases and lengthen the runway. Understood. I feel am missing some critical pieces that will help me vote:
- What is the plan of what will be done with the foregone rebases? A list of possible options is not a plan.
- If there is an actual plan or strategy beyond great ideas and potential discussed in the forum to make more income, please let me know. I would love to read it.
I would love see a plan and vote for rebase reduction based on that. I know folks are working hard and a lot is unknown but the unknown is a space I work in every day. I ask for a plan because I want to see the thought process for the next year of how this currency can become what you believe it can be. I am not looking looking for a sure thing. I am looking for strategic rationale. I have advised over 30 startups/small biz in the last year. I myself was a startup several times a few moons ago. I know it's not easy. I truly empathize with the effort because I went through it many times.
Feel free to message me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Great point and it makes sense.
What i said earlier is based on what was the "deal" when i joined so now suddenly its suppose to be changing. Seems "unfair" and not very trustworthy to me. And of course people care about the money, lets not fool ourselves, we are in it for the money. I'm not ashamed to admit it.
I believe in the project long-term and will keep funds here but ofc i will also at some point take profit.
Any how with that said as SAA says seeing some sort of strategic plan , golas, milestones maybe timeline etc will make this easier to understand and vote on.
I have also worked as technical project manager for 15 years or something and really like to see some more facts before i can say this makes sense or not. Also willing to help if needed 
woofwoof The idea is to lower the APY to lengthen the runway for another year. This is not a conversation about APY. This is about giving our management Ohmies time to continue to developing revenues streams and maturing the ecosystem. High APYs tend to only attract the wrong type of investors (I call them pirates). I don't have any issue with pirates, but they don't add value to the DAO long term.
No no no no. Why would we do this at this time? Migration isn't even complete and we are moving goal posts unnecessarily. The Runway is not in danger at this time.
shadow The price is in the gutter bro, everyone entered "2x this price" except for people who entered in April
woofwoof Yes that was my point as well. Your right about the 4000% APY
@SAA In a way it is. The "DAO" is moving the goal post earlier. And as previously asked please if there is any material to review with more details like goals/milestones , what the added money will be used for and actually what are the expenses today vs income. I see only 700milj treasury. What is that being used for? What are our cost for people working + ongoing projects?
Sorry for my many noob questions but before understanding and having answer to these , its hard to get involved in a meaningful way (for me anyway).
RufusXavier yes true (looking back its been over 1300$, amazing times ahead i hope hehe).
In my view tis move will scare / discourage many more i think. If you enter something and your already down , at least you count on the apy if you hodle and stay based on the "promised" apy. Suddenly changing it 5x downwards without articulating the reasons (just saying we want more in treasury is not good enough). just my 2 sats 
abipup OIP-18 is an emission schedule basically. This is what is meant by "natural decreases".
I fundamentally disagree with the idea of creating and voting on a schedule and then just changing it without there being a legitimate emergency. The benefit of having a schedule for emissions is to give the people predictability and helps to ease them into these changes so there are no surprises. OIP-63 is a literal surprise and there's no emergency triggering for this "improvement proposal".
All the benefits you listed are true, and will still be true if we wait for the supply to reach 10 million, as per OIP-18.
woofwoof I do empathize with your point about having voted already on another plan. That said, I also think that you have to be a bit more flexible to pivot and make changes to a strategy if it makes sense to do so. My question to you is what information do you need to make an educated decision about whether or not it is justified to move the goalposts? This is uncharted territory. No one here can tell us with any certainty what this DAO will look like in 12 to 24 months. We are truly making this up as we go along. Some decisions will be good and others will not. I think it makes sense to adapt intelligently. Recognize when right or wrong decisions are made and be humble enough to pivot and move on as necessary and justified. No one succeeds looking backwards.
- Edited
SAA Well, I already said what I would need to move the goalpost. It would have to be based on an emergency. Not on a whim of, "this would be good". The problem, fundamentally for me is, that we already voted on a schedule. That's like a "promise" to the investors that we will not change things until milestones are hit.
Think of it as a promise made….and now a promise not kept (or honored). While it may not seem like a big deal, in the psyche of investors, it feels like…untrustworthy.
No one likes surprises, and the schedule provided a path for no surprises. So only an identified emergency would be enough to satisfy the need to break this "promise" (which was voted on).
Introvertices I would say it's not fair for those who voted on OIP-18. OIP-18 is the emission schedule that shows all investors what milestones will be needed to lower the APY. So for me, a promise was made…and now its voted on to be broken.
And I'm ok with breaking a promise…only for justifiable "emergency" type reasons. If the logic is simply because "its like the halvening and price will go up!", well, that's not enough of a reason to break the already voted OIP-18. If that's the logic…why not just say "hey, lets do 10% APY!"
