OIP-63: Reward rate adjustment
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!"
woofwoof The only promise I see is that those that manage the DAO will work everyone's best interest and suggest changes as necessary to be democratically voted upon. OIP-18 would not have met my traditional stock market investment criteria. To me it all it says along with the new runway proposal, is "we need more time (money) to generate more revenue streams folks"
The pool is ended 
I couldn't vote..But, I wanted to vote against the APY change, because we haven't met the milestone yet, is supposed to be 10M supply to decrease the APY to 1k%
So, what I'm seeing here is like they are breaking their initial promise. So, my biggest concern now is, what project promise will be broken next?
Sorry guys, I'm a BIG BIIIG Olympus fan and Holder since the beginning, BUT I'm not happy with this decision.
By adjusting the APY before the 10m mark that was agreed on and that many have positioned there personal finances and crypto investments against. You are literally creating instability and screwing over the small and medium sized stakers that got this platform off the ground. If you are just going to constantly change the rules mid game, how can you expect anyone to trust your own rules.
I agree this APY change needs to happen, but to just say get over it, were doing it now, and screw you personally, to thousands of people who put real money into Ohm believing it was different. You already have hurt so many people in the name of the protocol, why not now that we are strong, give a little breathing room for the individuals that helped build this. The institutional money will still flow in. Just give the little guy a chance to get ahead on already agreed to numbers first.
woofwoof This is exactly what i wanted to say also!
First voting for one thing and then changing it just becasue "we think its a good idea" is not reason enough.
And @SAA i did ask several things that would help people in their understanding for the need to change. Just as @woofwoof says , once you vote its like a promise and unless there is an emergency i dont see why the need for change.
If we cant hold ourselves accountable to what we have agreed on then what is the point of the DAO and voting?
We need to have criteria's for changing an existing vote as well as a thought through plan for the change (what are we trying to achieve and by when). Sorry if this information is available but i have not found it. Would in that case appreciate some link so i can read up.
vampyren Not trying to convince you of my perspective. I only do that for clients that pay me to (I learned that the hard way).
Let me provide an example:
You tell your significant other that you won't be working late anymore. You effectively make a promise. Then 3 months later you have a great opportunity at work that you have the choice to work late on or not. Circumstances have changed. If you choose to work late again with consent from your significant other then the promise is not broken. It is simply a mutually agreed change to strategy. Now, if you decide unilaterally to work late without input from your significant other, then you may not be together much longer! The choice to drop APR to 1000% may make you decide to withdraw funds and invest elsewhere if there are other better projects / options. I do agree for all the reasons you and @ woofwoof stated that it is a change and can create instability. That said, how else do you course correct in this dynamic environment? I personally pivot on current strategy often with the consent of those involved in my business dealings. Fast evolving situations require agility. My 2 cents.
SAA Your analogy mostly works IMO, but here really all they have stated is that they want to increase the runway to almost double of 700 days, with almost a whole year still available to us. This is the part that is upsetting. It isn't some posted emergency or dynamic change that is needed. Its just a change that only helps the large players, thereby not allowing the small or middle holders to actually get the benefit of the protocol.
If I had 5k, 15k, 30k ohm like these people who are making the very weighted decisions, then I too could keep all the governance power in my hand by reducing the APY gains of the masses.
This is about nothing more than control by the whales and Devs. Its the exact opposite of why DAO's were created. Although, I'm not dumb and understand that it isn't ever going to work out that way. Greed infects everything, and now that this platform is strong, it will be just like everything else unfortunately…
SAA Basically what @LilMafia1 said.
I also work in IT and things change and we adapt. But there has to be good reasons for it. Here the reason dont make sense. Its not an emergency or anything close to it. We have a long runway and all is good.
So far we been going back and forth without any convincing reason for a change from previous vote.
Any how i'm in it for the long run, just sharing my thoughts and how i feel about the change. If a DAO is going to work then it has to be transparent, provide good information about proposed changes and why and how. Maybe your not sitting on all the answers but who ever does should make them public so decisions and votes are based on facts not feelings. I have been around for many years in the space and seen a few so called DAO's go under when a few think themselves being more important and dont share and let others participate. Hope this dont end up like that.