What I'm trying to figure out in my mind is whether or not the migration crisis on hand right presents an opportunity to push this in now with the narrative of further stabilizing the protocol and the value of OHM. It's clear to me that our current APY is not sustained by the rate at which the protocol is bonding. If we don't adjust the APY, the 'bleeding' will go on even longer.

At what cost? Selfishly, I'd love to get more runway at our current APY. So this will cost me some OHM now.

But I'm in this for the long-term, and a more reasonable APY has a net-positive effect on the protocol and OHM.

Also, this reduction was inevitable. We knew it was scheduled to happen at some point. We were told at 10 million OHM.

So what effect does doing it earlier have on the reputation/trust of the protocol? Sure, we'll always have people displeased (especially those with a short-term mindset), but will there be a large enough impact to the protocol because of doing this rate decrease early? For example, how was the decay rate of the APY supposed to be managed between the upper and lower bounds of the period? Was there an expectation set that it would decay linearly with supply over time? I don't think there was, but if not, this is also an important lesson in setting expectations. Saying the reward rate has yet to be adjusted since the initial value at 1 million OHM sounds like the team either forgot, was afraid to do so, or plain lazy. You're going to have people complaining that the decay was mismanaged and that now we're being penalized with a reduction before the 10 million mark. We have to be aware and navigate that PR storm.

    All for this. It seems like the team wants to make the unpopular but necessary adjustment just a little early, this just shows the good intentions imo. Nobody likes to lower the apy of course but it has to be implemented anyway in a few weeks, so why not just get started with it now? The difference in rewards between implementing now (which will still take weeks) or as per OIP 18 are minimal if you're taking a long-term approach. Voting for 100%

    I am in favor of extending the run way, however I think we need to wait until things have settled after V2 is all in place. I feel like its a great idea, but the wrong time.

    alefort no one said anything about waiting to adjust reward rate until 10m total supply. Now is a good time to begin the adjustment discussion and process, it's the most proactive way to manage emissions.

    It's ludicrous to say that the DAO forgot, was scared, or "too lazy" to manage reward rate. Read the policy reports on the forum and you'll know that's absolutely not the case.

      uliner ser this is 100% an implementation of reward rate change under the OIP-18 framework. We are smoothly adjusting to the max reward rate allowed by the 10M-100M band.

      Nothing to sneak in if we're blasting forum posts, AMA's, and announcements everywhere about it… take the FUD out of the forum please, this is supposed to be a productive conversation area.

        Never the best news for latecomers like me, but it is my understanding that it has to happen sometime.

          It's time to move to the next phase. If we want this project to have all the long term potential possible, we have to bacome more sustainable. Let's do it.

          So what if we airdropped the remaining 3M tokens to every ohmie that migrated and put the rate at 1,000%?

          domPablo Agree. The APY is not being adjusted as reflected on the homepage with the drop in price the connection to APY and price does not seem to be real when price drops APY should rise when there’s a selloff APY should rise decreasing APY is fine if you have a big stack but new investors and the average person is forced to look for better yields reducing to the minimum now I think it’s a mistake

            I don't think this should happen until January. Seriously.

            APY should be progressively lowered as proposed and approved in OIP-18.

            Dudemyguy @shadow

            Can you outline the consequences of just letting it naturally reduce via OIP-18? We have a decent amount of runway, and the supply growth is still healthy.

            Remember there's opportunity cost here there should be an award proportional to the amount of risk holders are taking on and given the high price volatility and rapidly changing liquidity I still believe there a lot of risk to investing in OHM. Not to mention that it sort of punishes new ohmies who bought in recently.

            I support this project 100%. The community is amazing and I'm sure the team works extremely hard, but I'm still unclear about the proposed benefits of this reduction.

            Having to collect $2M in RFV via bond sales has been sustainable so far, right? What are we getting by reducing the rewards rate other than runway?

                Gregg mate, you're still early! We are still part of a solid project giving us outsized returns.

                  what a joke, OIP-18 is already a joke, now this.

                    Saoish feel free to propose something you think is better

                      i-feel-so-al-ohm I think there's a general misunderstanding about OIP-18.

                      There is no natural decrease thru OIP-18. Proposals like OIP-63 are the "natural decreases" as a result of OIP-18. That framework only formalizes our guard rails, but the goal isn't to run head first into the guard rails.

                      Some various benefits of having lower APY:

                      • More efficient bonding - 5 day rate is lower so the minimum discount goes down
                      • Better integrations with partners
                      • OHM gets scarcer over time vs not decreasing
                      • Stronger signaling to the market
                      • Easier to maintain sustainable growth via non-bond revenue
                      • Putting "OHM is just a Ponzi" nonsense to bed