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 .

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.

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

    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.

      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.

      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

      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?

      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!

      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.

        shadow

        This looks like a different proposal from the original oip-18 one (which would knock us down a tier - not put us at the bottom of the current tier).

        Is this an additional reduction (based on the community call from earlier - a "step down" approach) or a replacement - nudging up the tier bases a bit?

        The proposal isn't moving us to the next tier. It's moving is to the bottom of the current tier over 4 weeks.

        Which would put us at the top of the new tier.

        So..... I GUESS it works out the same?

        The wording is funky shrug

        It looks like an in between step.

        Can you clarify if this is an "instead of" going to the next tier - and doing it sooner, or is it an "also, to smooth out the transition"?

          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.

            In traditional startup land the runway sweet spot for early stage companies is usually around 1.5 years (about 20-25% less than the 700 days proposed)

            More runway may feel safer, but it often also has the effect of getting complacent. I don't think we need 700 days at this stage tbh. 1-1.5 years seems like a better medium to not be in constant fear but also not feel to safe before we hit breakeven.

            I think we should do the proposed reward reduction on the 1st of 2022. A fresh start for the year and for ohmies will be good both statistically and mentally. Please like this so it gets considered. THANK YOU!

            @shadow Agreed, however I prefer if we space it out a bit more (6-8 weeks?), as I understand if we start reducing APY the date to hit 10M will be shifted back also due to lower number of Ohms circulating?

            Absolutely all for the rate reduction and keen to get this happening asap

            100% percent support it’s important that we Remember that the health of the protocol is the most important thing. I understand wanting to stick to the framework but doing that when it is detrimental to the protocol doesn’t make much. Better to correct issues when they rise than waiting till it’s too late and doing it in a panic.