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.

        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!"

            • SAA replied to this.

                woofwoof I do follow this logic. I don't agree with changes to an agreement

                without good reasons. Our discussion might end up being a moot point though as an overwhelming majority of people have voted to lower the APR last time I checked a few days ago :-(

                    SAA Yeah, I know. Still feels good to get that off my chest. 😏

                      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.

                        • SAA replied to this.

                            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…

                                • _mp_ replied to this.

                                    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.

                                      The below voted upon and passed OIP shows that the reward rate would be between 0.1587% and 0.3058% when ohms are between 1M and 10M which is where we are now. The gradual reduction from the max reward to the min. reward does NOT violate the vote and agreement. It is understood that when the number of Ohms is closer to the end mark (10M) the reward would be LESS than the max. it would be closer to the min. 0.1587%.

                                      even if the reward rate is lowered to 2000% APY or 1001% we are still complying with the OIP that was passed.

                                        Yes OberonSky I agree, it technically fits the chart. Its the hurt put on the little guys that isn't right.

                                        But by your example given, as soon as we get to 10,000,001 that day you could cut the % rate to 500% and be within the charting. But it would really piss off a lot of people and further drive them away.

                                        We are losing price not from APY, but from selling or loss of capitol to other forks. Really simple. If what you guys said was true then our price should should still be going higher and higher since the +1200 per Ohm days a couple months ago, because all we've done is lower the APY and also lost price per Ohm drastically. Where did the money go, to all the other Ohm forks.

                                        Higher APY keeps people staked, even if we lose higher prices, because the stakers know they will make their money that way.

                                        With the lower APY there isnt as much desire to stay staked so we not only lose rewards that build up and keep the treasury strong, but we also lose price to both panic selling or those with large bags who no longer will get the higher amounts by staying staked. Cash is king, the treasury wants and needs it and so do individual people. The individuals are what your forgetting in this quick decision.

                                        Im in it for long run because I can afford to be, but we are going to lose so much credibility from this….

                                            LilMafia1

                                            I disagree on the narrative of pitting the small guy vs. the big guy in here… many of the OG Ohmies and Devs if not all are diamond hands, no one is selling off that I know of. Further, assuming that all the people who bought the tops were small investors is incorrect, many people I spoke to on Discord bought the highs and were not small amounts… Many Ohmies who are stuck in the middle (not small bags and not whales, me included) also bought at that time what we all thought dips at 700 and 800 multiple times… and here we are at 326 a few weeks later… we are ALL in this together more or less.

                                            No one is suggesting that the moment we hit 10M + 1 we go to the min. APY of that phase… personally I prefer we let the CODE control the reduction based on a formula linearly from the highest reward to the lowest reward rate of a certain epoch or phase (1M to 10M, 10M to 100M, etc.) If we do this and publish it it WILL prevent any FUD… we all KNOW that for every rate number of Ohms in circulation there will be a corresponding calculatable reward rate which can still vary slightly based on the %age of people staked … but at least we can publish the numbers for 90% staked like we did above.

                                            If we do that it will eliminate much of the confusion or uncertainty to new and old investors.

                                            Regarding the situation at hand, I would want the same to be applied… we are at 7M out of 10M which can be calculated roughly to set the reward rate at 0.2% give or take… as we move closer to 10M the reward would change till it hits the 0.15% at 10M automatically… no voting no drama no discussions.

                                                LilMafia1
                                                If a whale has more ohm, they get more rewards, the APY doesn't matter.

                                                If you have 10 ohm and a whale has 10000 ohm, they get 1000x more ohm per rebase no matter the reward rate, you will never "catch up" to them or whatever, they will always have 1000x more ohm than you do. I don't see how cutting the reward rate changes anything in terms of ohm distribution.

                                                "Whales" don't get anything more than smaller wallets when the APY is modified in any direction.

                                                So please clearly state why you think that's the case in an example with some numbers, or refrain from the have vs have-nots/us vs them mentality, it doesn't lead anywhere.

                                                    _mp_ Exactly this.

                                                    LilMafia1

                                                    I really don't understand why APY reduction is the whales ripping off the "little guy"? The APY was always psyops to kickstart the protocol. APY in itself is not ROI. You're not getting more value or less per say because of a higher APY, there's no free lunch. Relatively speaking, the distance between the whale and you staking remains exactly the same if you both stake. 3,3 is almost analogous with buy-and-hold, except you get more return if others unstake.

                                                    BTC has no APY and people still hold it even though they get diluted by POW (bonders). An APY reduction will increase the inherent value behind 1 ohm. So even if people sell, the backing per ohm will start rising more. We have to shift the mentality from "high-APY-ponzi-farm" to "revenue-generating-reserve-asset".

                                                    Also: Olympus APY has not been reduced yet but the price has dropped significantly… so saying high APY keeps people staked and prevents them from selling may not correlate 1 to 1 with real world results. There's a correlation but it's not that simple I feel.

                                                    I'm really sorry you feel this way but I don't understand your reasoning why this change would hurt your financial position.

                                                        I do agree with you. Information has not be on par with what I would normally ask for in the rest of my portfolio. The risk of a rug pull in any of these investments is very real. I have been about 4 years in the space but 25+ in other investments of all types. Some investment strategy crosses over. These markets are very fluid. I see a lot of folks in general who don't have the appetite for the risk they might be taking. I do hope the DAO does stabilize in the long run; the concept is compelling. I am interested to see what the Gary Gensler type folks will do in the space in terms of regulation.

                                                        Everyone wants to become a whale, whales are a good thing for the protocol and a bad thing for the little guy though. But in reality everyone wants to become a whale and people put money into this hoping to become one over time. Now all we have is people leaving the protocol because they cant stay in it because of huge losses and not enough apy to get it back in the near future.

                                                        I'm staying, like I said. I just feel this rush to lower things is going to hurt us all very badly. I wish there was more facts presented to show why this is needed. Not just a couple paragraphs saying hey, its a good idea.

                                                        That is why so many that I talk to feel cheated… Much less like their vote will ever matter, they don't have enough ohm to matter and with the apy cuts it slows down their ability to group together to shut down a vote the little guys don't like.

                                                        The whales and Devs know this and that is the reason people think it is happening. So I guess well continue to bleed little people capital. I know big institutional capital is needed, hell I'm a CEO of a large corporation invested here also, I get it. But the crypto market is made also by individuals believing in it and sharing thier successes with those they know and we will lose so much from their loss.