Introvertices This proposal is to begin a 4 week descent to the next tier now, ultimately ending at 1K APY (top of next tier) and staying there for quite a while.

    It seems reasonable to lower the reward rate I suppose, there are definitely good reasons to do so. But isn't the total supply under 7 million still? Dropping to the absolute minimum for the 1 to 10 million range may be jumping ahead a bit? I think dropping to 2000/3000% APY range would make more sense till we get closer to the 10 million mark? Seems like a reasonable drop from the 7000/6000% we've been at for a while now, but I'm no authority on how these things work, so maybe I'm missing something, or just have the wrong idea how to manage this.

      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.

      Estimating timeline towards 10M supply, polls / votes should be prepared beforehand. That's understandable. So, could we wait for completion of migration? Then we need to have enough time for this proposal.

        Im curious to hear everyones opinions on needing THAT MUCH runway.. I believe we need the balance of focusing short term narratives is just as healthy as focusing on longterm vision. Lets be real 1 year in crypto is like an eternity for most ppl… why isnt there an inbetween milestone because 10million to 100million supply is a LONG time and im worried 1000% apy wont be lucrative to most people especially when there is LOTS of competition on the market now.. why not slowly reduce to like say ~4000 apy till 50million supply and drop.. I know these apy drops are for the health of protocol but 700 day runway seems crazy to me

          Proactive over reactive. Let's do it ahh to smooth out this volatility and reduce the scalp trades

          domPablo runway is only one part of why this is good. This issuance reduction will allow for greatet protocol revenue, greater protocol revenue leads to more value backing per token. And with this we can also increase our focus on bonds, whether that be on LPs or on reserve assets. Also, this will help reduce selling pressure on the token since we will be distributing way less. Just 3,3 fren 🙂 don't worry about "competition". Competition won't be won with high APYs, that is not the name of the game here. That's like checkers.. we're playing chess 😉 <3

              I thought this was going to be voted on at 10mil. what is the rush. runway seems good. emissions will decrease but that probably wont help price that much.

                Meme APY was for gaining attention.

                Now that we have everyone’s attention (hi Congress), we don’t need the absolutely insane APYs.

                dio emission reduction actually helps reduce sell pressure. Also this will help with liquidity and backing of the token which can both have positive impacts on price.

                    The rush is that the token becomes more useful when the APY isn’t crazy. The way we generate wealth is making the token useful, not with an massive APY.

                    • dio replied to this.

                      I wasn't in favor of timing or speed at which last reward reduction was implemented. BUT, I did see how insanely helpful it was in setting up major price gains through Sept and Oct. Those are all wiped away now, but seems that's largely related to sell pressure from big holders gaining tons of OHM every rebase.

                      So, while I wish we could keep rewards higher for longer to grow my own bag, I understand the necessity of this reduction. Reduced volatility will inspire investors across all these new chains and lay a foundation for what should be a massive growth period. Plus there are a plethora of partnerships to consider now.

                      Super high APY has been a seeding period and I'm grateful to have been a part last 8 months. Wish my bag was bigger but we're still very early (I believe).

                      @shadow This is an important OIP, so to be fair to gOHM holders please allow gOHM voters to vote on snapshot for it. Or at the very least allow voting with the new sOHM version so holders can swap to it temporarily.

                      Otherwise, gOHM holders may be forced to buy back the old sOHM version to vote. Thank you—just want to make sure the voting process is as fair and easy as possible especially to those who have migrated to gOHM as suggested.

                      shadow It is preferable to continuously match the growth of the protocol with the growth of supply through the reward rate and not have the discrepancy shown through the price as that causes not only volatility on the market, but in our revenues as well.

                      Rebasing reward rate should match demand, otherwise price goes down, as we've seen lately. The APY is only sustainable if people keep buying the discounted token sales through bonds (docs). Reward yield of 0.1587% gives daily growth of 0.4769% and APY of 468%. With 5,381,906 OHM staked right now, the protocol mints an additional 25,664 OHM to achieve this daily growth, equivalent to $10.2 million sold below market value at discounts of 1-5% to bond buyers. Without an equivalent amount of demand from bond buyers, the price will continue decreasing.

                      Daily revenue figures show a decline from a 7-day moving average of $17 million on October 26th to $3.8 million December 8th, a week ago, with more recent figures even lower. The Dune dashboard says this may not be accurate due to the migration underway to v2, but that started December 11th. Do we have a better estimate? The $3.8 million of daily bond buying demand would support an APY of 87% at the current price, or the above 468% APY at an Ohm price of 114. See my work in this spreadsheet.

                      If those APYs are unappealing, or if the lower price is unappealing, or if you think revenues are lower and going to remain low, or if you worry about the 11% drop in Ohm staking today, I would suggest you get out now.

                        I am generally in favour of reducing APY and reading some of the other posts / concerns here, this could be an opportunity to address other issues in one go. What if we scaled APY based on time staked, open to what this could be but as a talking point say >60 days = 3000%, 30 - 59 days = 2000% and <30 days = 1000%.

                        Weightings / time should be debated. Importantly, those who sell and buy back in will start over as the reward rate resets. This would not only reduce APY, increase runway and increase treasury but also reduce scalp trades and dumping which is covered in other posts on this forum. I think this would smooth out the growth along with increasing trust in the overall project for holders and new entrants alike, both of which are essential. This also directly lines up with the 3:3 principle.

                          Will vote in favor, we're transitioning to a true powerhouse in the ecosystem. APY reduction will help stabilize the volatility and flexibility moving forward. Benefits demonstrated above in regards to policy adjustments and further growth.

                          🤝(3,3)

                          epik maybe the sudden drop will cause chaos in investors.

                            json I love your phrase:"this will help reduce selling pressure on the token since we will be minting way less". That's a kind of balance between high APY and low price, because early whales are keeping exiting with their daily rewards. How to get a balanced point in between is kind of an art, failing on this will resulting price behavior in the past months, or investors aping out for higher APY competitors.

                            • json replied to this.