OIP-63: Reward rate adjustment

Platinum_Duck

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.

Kazuya1987

Platinum_Duck

it's too complicated + deters new stakers. If I one day in the future read about a project called OHM (that I'd never heard of until that moment) and realized the staking mechanics work like that (longer in it + more you get) I would just dismiss it and say ahh well i'm not going to (further) subsidise the early stakers in that way and too bad I didn't catch it earlier, but this opportunity has passed me by. Even as someone who has staked for a very long time, I don't think it would serve the DAOs interests well if we were to do this

Kition

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)

oasising

epik maybe the sudden drop will cause chaos in investors.

oasising

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

oasising ust want to clarify that it's not that we're minting less the distribution of minted ohm decreases but same point.. reduced selling pressure

MrMochi

In total agreement.

As a long term investor I prefer having the knowledge that I'll get more sustainable yield at a slightly lower APY. Crypto could go sideways for an entire year here. Further decreasing the yield and thus increasing sustainability will create more scarcity and balance the yield vs the IV generation. Ultimately getting us closer to a more stable Ohm price.

FluctusLux

Ah shit, here we go again.

100% for this proposal. For the new people that just joined, this is the 3rd time APY is going down. The first two times that APY went down, bond revenue went up, more partnerships were created, and Olympus has done nothing but grow.

1 year runway may seem like more than enough for our space, but let's not forget what's happening with the world right now. the Fed has begun tapering and will rate hike soon. Whether we like it or not, Crypto is still widely affected by the decisions of the policy makers in ~~tard~~ tradfi. IMO, runway should be 3 years (1095 days) minimum. Worst case, no one bonds (highly unlikely) and we need all the runway that we can get.

Necroid

FluctusLux You do realize that you get absolutely nothing out of "Olympus doing nothing but growing" right? They do, you dont

asincuka

Is it possible to design for the reward rate to adjust smoothly related to the circulating supply based on the agreed reward framework? For example we are now on 7 mil of the 10 mil reward framework, it should automatically adjust to 7/10 of the range of 0.3058% to 0.1587%.

Im all for the reduction, i want the treasure to outgrow the reward rate so we can see backing value increases.

purefissure

Can't wait to tell the tradfi bros about our ridiculous 1000% APY

Hoping we can implement this as we get much closer to the 10 mil supply as stated in OIP-18, don't see the immediate rush considering we'll be pushing for 600-700 day runway.

Kazuya1987

100% in favor, absolutely necessary.

For OHM to truly stand on its legs, OHM needs to grow and build its other income streams. As a staker, this is the one I have been waiting for to vote YES on + hope the community can understand why this is LT bullish. I'd rather get this done sooner than later tbh as I strongly believe this is what is best for my 3,3

The ELI5 is think of the OHM In our treasury as a resource for the DAO to create value for the protocol. At these rates, looking ahead, we are paying too much to ourselves (the stakers) and need to recalibrate moving forward. It was good for the meme apy + distribution, but in the end we want to use those OHM to reward stakers yes, but really to build other income streams (like selling Bonds for other projects, incubation, LP fees + yield farming, etc). This will grow the pie longer term more sustainability and is the only way for the project to thrive and I believe bring longer term better price action/movement for the project as the DAO grows these income streams

yrys83

I am in favour however I believe we should stick to schedule and lower at the 10 mil mark. Also too much going on right now. We should delay this proposal until things settle .

Tlacka

Stick to OIP - 18 - definetly, no question about it.

Timing of the reduction - 4 weeks (ok) but from when? Before we even hit the 10mil.? (Not good).

And lastly and most importantly, roughly 2kapy for the past 2 days is missing for the stakers and there is a 5 paragraph notion “article” on it without any dates etc.? (This should be adressed on the first place).

Summary: Finish the migration process(its a mess on the front end side i.e. 400k apy, than 4k apy, etc.), compensate investors for difference in what should have been distributed to stakers and what actually was, put some timeline in the forum post and stick to the guidelines outlined in OIP - 18 regarding the emission amount and apy reduction.

summeroftip

Introvertices im thinking maintain

cryptocan

json I'm very happy to see the apy reduction and the sooner the better. The bear market hasn't helped the treasury backing and high issuance will only expand the problem.

I do like the 4 week window though. I feel like that will attract more capital to get as much market share of ohm before issuance is reduced and all the revenue generating will start increasing the price. Very booolish.

EconomistBeard

This proposal, paired with other proposals to grow our treasury more organically instead of focusing solely on bonding income (which dilutes 3,3) and the incoming market maker presents an extremely bullish outlook for OHM.

I'm not looking forward to having to explain to the new OHMies I've helped onboard in meatspace why they should stay when APY's going to start coasting down, especially when we've spent the last month nose-diving in price lol.

Fully support. My advanced expression of solidarity to those in similar situations.

zrcrypto

there are too many changes lately, including the V2 migration that it taking longer than expected. This creates uncertainty among the community which is partially reflected in the price decline. Through the last months people were informed about OIP-18 and got used to it. Doing another change in this problematic time will just create more volatility. I suggest to stick to the original OPI-18 and therefore against this proposal

lotm

Would it be possible to make the reward rate a function of the total OHM supply instead of adjusting it manually with proposals like this seeing that we have already agreed with the OIP-18 framework?

Rasuki

I'm for it if we are compensated in the reduction of rewards due to the migration before hand. Other than that, anything that helps the health of the protocol, I'm down for!

Reaver

I’ve been looking forward to the OIP-18 scheduled reduction for a while. My ideal way to transition would be to gradually reduce APY from here as a function of supply, such that we cross the 1000% mark exactly as we hit 10 million circulation. That might mean a series of smaller drops or perhaps a smoothed out function. We have 3 million supply to go, so maybe 6 drops of ~1000% every 500k supply, for example, with each drop spread over 3, 15 or 30 rebases.

That could provide the smooth transition that seems most advantageous.

Also of concern right now is the V2 migration. There’s a lot of confusion at the moment as the UI on the staking site is all over the place and token supply is split across V1 and V2. I would suggest we let those issues settle before starting to adjust the rates as well. Clarity is important for such a large change.

yrys83

Reaver I believe it will take a month before we start lowering the apy. If that is the case then Im in favour. As long as we can all vote with our gOhm.

« Previous Page Next Page »