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.

                    LilMafia1

                    I can understand that perhaps the proposal should've been more laid out. I agree that important proposals should perhaps be more clear in their reasoning as to allow everyone to really grasp what is at stake. At the same time, investors also have to do their due diligence. Whether that person only has 1 ohm or is throwing around 8 figures in his/hers pyjamas. They all have to put in the work and try to understand their investments.

                    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.

                    Once again: a high APY will not make your losses disappear. It's this line of thinking that will make investors lose money. A high APY is worthless if the underlying protocol is not healthy (or well balanced). Investors also have a duty to understand this.

                    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.

                    There's a lot of discussion about voting in DeFi but it's a hard concept in a decentralized setting. Voting weight by the amount of skin in the game is simple and "fair". It might not be as democratic as some would like, but until a better solution is found, this is how it will likely work. Nothing is stopping anyone from actually discussing and coming up with different proposals. If the frustrated energy from some would be invested in this way: a lot more would get done. Whales are people with feelings too you know, you can just talk to them and convince them of your ideas.

                    All in all this discussion really isn't about "devs and whales" versus the "little guy". It's about education and how some people invested may not quite understand the dynamics at play. Every APY reduction we unfortunately shed some investors who we failed to educate or convince of the reasoning. That's definitely an issue. But usually they always come back once they see the positive impact the Policy team has achieved so far.

                    PS: most Olympus whales are smooth brains cultivated in the depths of OT anyway. Prove me wrong.

                        MrMochi Once again: a high APY will not make your losses disappear. It's this line of thinking that will make investors lose money. A high APY is worthless if the underlying protocol is not healthy (or well balanced). Investors also have a duty to understand this.

                        Thats the thing though. We are asking why the sudden change and ask for facts? Just saying it is better with higher runway is not a good enough reason in my opinion.
                        why no simply wait until 10milj and adjust the reward?
                        If there are good reasons then it should be stated clearly so we can talk about facts and numbers. But after asking many times no one has responded to my questions. (you can check them above)

                        OberonSky 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…

                        Totally with you on this. That would be the best approach.

                              devs have already made up their mind. this post is just for show. their whale friends will get it pushed through regardless of our opinion

                                federico123 year true, not worth arguing.

                                I'm sort of new and went actually to vote and dont seem to be able with gOHM even. Maybe i do it wrong but with 95% for my small share wont matter either.

                                • _mp_ replied to this.

                                    federico123 Exactly my point.

                                    This was done on a holiday when no one was watching and was done for the exact reasons stated before. Which is why they wont respond with actual facts to back it up.

                                    MrMochi At the same time, investors also have to do their due diligence. Whether that person only has 1 ohm or is throwing around 8 figures in his/hers pyjamas. They all have to put in the work and try to understand their investments.

                                    You just proved my point. They did their due diligence. They saw how long they had at certain rates and such. As already voted on. It is the sudden change without any real clarity that is pissing everyone off because you all at the top decided to change things way early… So how does the power grab at the top factor into them planning or are they just supposed to say well life says there will always be whales, devs, and oligarchs so they should of just expected it. Is that what your trying to say? MrMochi

                                            So basically, instead of a rug pull, the top players did a Power/Voting Pull against everyone.

                                            Im still in this for the long term, but Im calling a spade a spade. So little people just always remember, if your not in the inside tract or have large sums of money, you will always be used to take your $$$ to create liquidity for the big guys to pull their money. Just like the stock market.

                                            We could really benefit out of this problem if the devs decided to put together something to benefit the small guys in this protocol for supporting it. Remember, 500 invested by someone with almost no extra money feels like they invested in this project more than a millionaire who put 50,000 in most cases. Lets turn these people into very active advocates not the reverse.

                                            LilMafia1 vampyren federico123

                                            https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18a1-OiIEkK8zyV2Otnb2PkiDPUHthOUB/edit#gid=461416470

                                            I published this sheet for my own predictions of Ohm (naked, unstaked) Ohm price which is NOT the best indicator for true performance of a rebasing token with Ohm mechanics. If you want to compare apples to apples the performance of the asset you should look at the Index Adjusted Price (or now you can look at gOHM chart etc.)

                                            Ohmie of the week, @fluidsonic made a great dashboard where you can find that and a lot of excellent information. Link below:

                                            https://dune.xyz/fluidsonic/Olympus-DAO

                                            To understand why so many people are aligned on the reward reduction you need to play around with the sheet and understand that no matter what you do to APY, what really counts for your investment health and profit/loss is the market cap. We know from the math and the rewards what kind of Ohm emissions (ohms in circulation) will be using various scenarios of APY numbers… no matter what APY you put in there while leaving the MC at the same level you will still end up with the same amount of USD value of investment. This is clear when you look at the formula:

                                            MC = Ohm Price X Ohms in Circulation

                                            When MC is fixed … when Ohms in circulation (higher APY) go up Ohm price goes down…

                                            In order to have a healthy protocol you NEED MC to go up not the APY, not the Ohm price etc. only MC needs to grow .. so if we all agree that to benefit all Ohm Investors, Olympus should do EVERYTHING in its power to increase MC.

                                            If we start from this fact, we now can have a better discussion on how to WAGMI all of us, MC to go up you need adoption from fresh investors or additional investment from existing Ohmies:

                                            1. To get fresh investors that are (3,3) and aligned with the protocol, you cannot rely on high APY as this will cause what you see now, degens aping in and running away when APY goes down... you need long-term investments that come from more traditional/conservative backgrounds. Those will study the Olympus mechanics and will see the seriousness and professionalism of the DAO being responsible in enacting these reward reductions to guarantee long-term health.

                                            2. Protocols that want sOHM or gOHM in their treasuries will not buy into Ohm if it keeps an unsustainable APY rate that could hurt their own treasuries.

                                            3. To entice existing long-term (3,3) investors (yes including the whales) to stay and buy more, you also need to reduce APY because most of the existing (3,3) investors do not want dilution... reducing APY is a signal that this protocol is serious and they will double down on their investment.

                                            If you are a whale and you have been selling 1,000 ohms per day or week etc. from your rebasing rewards, to invest somewhere else or to rotate etc. with a lower APY you will have to sell half of that every week or will need to wait for longer before selling the same amount. The same for ALL holders who are selling their rewards regularly... Less sell pressure > Higher price for Ohm.

                                            The argument that the Ohmies (small and large bags) who aped into Ohm at ATH or at less than optimal Entry Price, will be hurt by the APY reduction and will force them to wait longer to breakeven... this is not a reason to set a Protocol policy on, I do feel for them and many of us made investments in this space where we bought the top and either ended up selling bottoms or held to break even ... this is not an OHM issue, it is all of crypto assets issue…

                                            Even the almighty Bitcoin, if you bought the top of 68k USD a few weeks back .. right now you are more than 30% down on your investment... if you bought BTC in April at 64k, 8 months later you are still in loss ... I will not even mention LINK or DOT investors who bought the tops... look at the charts of MANY "AAA" Crypto assets... and again reminder, if you want apples to apples comparison, look at the Ohm Index Adjusted Price chart we are still above the 50% from ATH which is a good indication ... if you only look at the naked Ohm price chart it gives the wrong impression about the real VALUE of the asset you are holding..

                                            Bottomline, there are no "backroom" deals going on with whales and devs etc. to screw the little guy ... this is absurd honestly to think after truly looking into the reality of the Olympus mechanics and its tokenomics.

                                                    LilMafia1

                                                    Consider this my second invitation to back your claims with data.

                                                    This was done on a holiday when no one was watching and was done for the exact reasons stated before. Which is why they wont respond with actual facts to back it up.

                                                    You're factually wrong.

                                                    More wallets voted on this proposal than all the other votes I could find, including previous reward reductions (almost double) and the vote still isn't over. It was left up for 4 days, after 12 days on the forum. This dev & whale cabal is actually pretty shit at hiding stuff and passing stuff when noone is watching.

                                                    So basically, instead of a rug pull, the top players did a Power/Voting Pull against everyone.

                                                    You can just have a look at the wallets with less than 10 ohm who voted on the proposal and see that it would still pass with a wide margin. Go ahead and check: https://snapshot.org/#/olympusdao.eth/proposal/0x893809b3725e9629201539c68f9c0f2a13cbe140d6deb1849e497db1f74d8d84

                                                    Maybe, just maybe, there is no whale conspiracy and "little people" actually want something that you don't, because they understand things that you don't ?

                                                    Believe it or not, the "little guy" is actually a big concern in all the DAO meetings I've been in, but you don't have to believe me: Just join the DAO and check for yourself.

                                                      vampyren

                                                      That's weird, pretty sure gOhm is supported as I only hold gOhm and was able to vote. Please post in #questions on discord and you'll get some support there (we don't give support on the forum anymore because scammers are actively posting fake links here, sorry …)

                                                      Discord link: https://discord.gg/ZH3BEsVy

                                                        OberonSky To understand why so many people are aligned on the reward reduction you need to play around with the sheet and understand that no matter what you do to APY, what really counts for your investment health and profit/loss is the market cap. We know from the math and the rewards what kind of Ohm emissions (ohms in circulation) will be using various scenarios of APY numbers… no matter what APY you put in there while leaving the MC at the same level you will still end up with the same amount of USD value of investment. This is clear when you look at the formula:

                                                        MC = Ohm Price X Ohms in Circulation

                                                        When MC is fixed … when Ohms in circulation (higher APY) go up Ohm price goes down…

                                                        In order to have a healthy protocol you NEED MC to go up not the APY, not the Ohm price etc. only MC needs to grow .. so if we all agree that to benefit all Ohm Investors, Olympus should do EVERYTHING in its power to increase MC.

                                                        I agree with you here except, what has changed is the APY has been going down significantly during this time period, which actually reduces our ever expanding market cap. Because each rebase that happens, our market cap goes higher because more Ohm is created, so Im stating that the APY going down is actually lowering our price because so many people want to leave and it creates selling pressure. So now we are not only hurting our market cap with less newly created ohm, but also selling pressure driving down the price of Ohm. So now the snowball is started and you at the top started it. Its the fact that you are all unwilling to face. To make matters worse you all keep starting new snowballs at the same time. A large percentage of the little and medium players are scared shitless.

                                                        So how are you going to stop the snowball of our falling price and apy , ie MC. Let things level out for a while. Let people get a grip on what one individual change does and how it affects the protocol and their money. Nott just pile even more on them as they watch their money disappear.

                                                        Come on, you guys are very smart, you have to be, but I think most of you are techies mostly and we are so happy to have you here, maybe you all should consider someone on staff that their whole job is to play devils advocate at all times so you can see different perspectives better and together we all win or at least feel like were in it together, not this top down perception that is for real being felt and affecting this great protocol.

                                                          To the rest of you posting facts and charts, Ill be glad to look at these and reconsider my opinions on what is happening if the facts show that to me. I would expect nothing less from any of you.

                                                          Im out here just pointing out how a lot of people feel about the direction of Ohm. If none of us cared we wouldn't waste our time to argue these points. We love it and are invested in it like you are.

                                                          I hope we can always have multiple points of view published here, it will only make us all stronger.

                                                          Oh, and one more thing, I gotta pay my EX WIFE soon, could you all please get the price back up into happy territory! lol J/K.

                                                            OberonSky Thanks allot for the material. I will look at this tonight when i dont have the kids jumping around me 🙂 I'm sure there is a ton i dont get but its good to have something to play around with…
                                                            Not sure these data answer my questions but its a start…to have some good material about what are the goals for the new income (if any), what we want to achieve, how, when etc.

                                                            OberonSky MC = Ohm Price X Ohms in Circulation

                                                            When MC is fixed … when Ohms in circulation (higher APY) go up Ohm price goes down…

                                                            In order to have a healthy protocol you NEED MC to go up not the APY, not the Ohm price etc. only MC needs to grow .. so if we all agree that to benefit all Ohm Investors, Olympus should do EVERYTHING in its power to increase MC.

                                                            Just a comment on above, the MC will surely also go up with Ohm price going up! This is in fact what is hurting us right now with the dropping price.

                                                            And again i must say i agree with all the things @LilMafia1 says above.

                                                            I'm also here because i care and want the project to succeed.

                                                                  vampyren LilMafia1

                                                                  One thing I want to point out is the whole MC = Number of Ohms X Ohm Price…

                                                                  Your view is that when price goes up the MC goes up and therefore we should let APY be to attract more people which will increase price and hence increase MC .. but personally I believe it is the other way around… away form the price extremes on the very high and very low MC is the force that drives price, the way I see it is that when fresh capital is added it increases MC and price just follows as a consequence unless it goes to bonding which absorbs the incoming flow of capital and does not affect market price (market buys) in the short run…

                                                                  When price is extremely low, it may entice people to buy the dip .. when it is extremely high it will entice selling and profit taking .. but for the in-between Price just follows and not leads the MC… both extremes in my opinion are not the best (although buying the dip is better than selling the top) … but to have the healthy 3,3 attitude, you want relative stability where emotions are not affecting the decision (aka price leading MC on the two extremes) ..

                                                                  To make sure you have organic growth, no FUD no FOMO emotions .. protocol would control the price extremes via bonding capacity (as clarified by Pottedmeat in a chat on discord) and push price down via opening bond capacity when price goes parabolic to direct capital to bonds and prevent price mooning beyond reasonable highs and stop bonding when it goes below fair price …

                                                                  This would help or alleviate the case where FOMO causes people to buy the extreme top and get rekt like what we saw recently…

                                                                        OberonSky

                                                                        OberonSky When price is extremely low, it may entice people to buy the dip .. when it is extremely high it will entice selling and profit taking .. but for the in-between Price just follows and not leads the MC…

                                                                        I appreciate the conversation on this. With that said I truly can't understand what you are saying here, "Price just follows and not leads Market Cap" Since weve already established that MC is price x supply, then price, either up or down is immediately changing the market cap. So when you said in the earlier conversation that MC is most important your analysis was screwed because your acting like its a separate thing from price and supply

                                                                        OberonSky Your view is that when price goes up the MC goes up and therefore we should let APY be to attract more people which will increase price and hence increase MC .. but personally I believe it is the other way around… away form the price extremes on the very high and very low MC is the force that drives price, the way I see it is that when fresh capital is added it increases MC and price just follows as a consequence unless it goes to bonding which absorbs the incoming flow of capital and does not affect market price (market buys) in the short run…

                                                                        Yes, and all you have to do is look at each individual fork of Ohm to see that as a higher rate is put out there. Then fresh capital flows its way. Here in Ohm we have to be bleeding serious capitol for our price to keep dropping like it is. Why is the capital leaving, because we keep lowering the APY so much that the other OHM forks are a more attractive option to the new and large capitol inflows.

                                                                        We keep stating that stability is our greatest asset here, but so far we aren't showing very much stability. Hell we cant even keep to a prior votes requirements/plan for more than a couple months around here, without devs trying to change everyone's mind once again almost immediately. Id understand if they actually put substantial reasoning out with facts to back up their position, but they aren't doing that. They just say trust us. Well OHM has lots of $$$ to throw around. But what about you, they keep changing your gains. Hell, if this wasn't crypto, management would already be fired for such a drop in price, especially if they couldn't present a clear path to regaining the assets on the balance sheet.

                                                                        OberonSky To make sure you have organic growth, no FUD no FOMO emotions .. protocol would control the price extremes via bonding capacity (as clarified by Pottedmeat in a chat on discord) and push price down via opening bond capacity when price goes parabolic to direct capital to bonds and prevent price mooning beyond reasonable highs and stop bonding when it goes below fair price …

                                                                        Yes this is true, but if you go look at the other forks, they actually do this, they actually allow high discount bonds in order to keep the price as stable as possible, here were lucky to see a 2-3% discount and that would be considered high.

                                                                        Anyway, now I sound like I'm just bitching, I'm not, I'm actually trying to get a Dev or two to realize, its just to early to cut off the APY, doing that so early is what allowed the other Ohm forks to get a foot hold and suck up tons of capitol that should of been ours.

                                                                        If most of these OHM forks didn't exist we would probably have a 3k coin price right now.