SUBGURU

A higher APY does not inherently give a higher ROI for stakers. If investors have questions they can always turn to the docs or sherpas for more information. If instead they'd rather take their bet in another project because numbers are higher, feel free.

Also Olympus is now, in a first basic fashion, on five L1 chains I believe: ETH (+Arbitrum), Fantom, Avax, Polygon and Moonriver. May have missed some as it's going quite fast. So you can interact with gOhm on those cheaper chains as well.

Reducing APY now given the market is already down is always better. Most paper hands will have sold already. So reducing it now limits the volatility we'd have to endure later on. If you feel delaying the reduction is best, just vote no. It's basically the same outcome. A reduction will need to happen at some point so a new proposal would come up anyway.

    i-feel-so-al-ohm

    Just answering two questions and leaving the rest for Abipup. Sorry if it's not the answers you're looking for.

    More efficient bonding - 5 day rate is lower so the minimum discount goes down - How does this affect holders? Is 2M in bond sales hard to attain? Other protocols with much higher APYs maintain their bond sales so why can't OHM?

    Other projects therefore use higher bond discounts to attract bonding and increase runway. But doing this dilutes stakers a lot more over time. Meaning that if the entire project marketcap would 10x in a year, stakers would not feel a 10x increase as they're slowly getting their cookie taken apart by bonders. So if you skew that mechanic too much 3,3 become sub-optimal and 2,2 becomes the dominant strategy (already the case for certain forks). But if that happens, there's no point in holding the token really, it becomes a game of musical chairs where everyone bonds and the treasury grows but nobody wants to hold the token as they'd lose out on too much money. In efficient markets, this would cause selling pressure on the token which would send it straight to RFV/MV/Book value. Now considering many investors in forks don't quite see this yet, the market is still acting rather inefficient and those projects can still stay alive for a while. But we can't expect that behavior to continue indefinitely.

    In short: the entire mechanics of Olympus were never meant to keep running at one certain value. Especially not at degen APY. The math just doesn't work out in the long run. There's no real difference between inflation in FIAT markets and APY inflation in Ohm-like protocols. If you're bootstrapping an economy, it may help in the short term (which is why Olympus did it) but long term it never works out.

    Easier to maintain sustainable growth via non-bond revenue - There's still a lot of runway left though. And my understanding is that the rewards rate automatically changes according to OIP-18?

    Imagine every Ohm token is a kid with a mouth to feed and all of the protocol revenue is food incoming. If you keep printing more Ohm, you're gonna need more revenue to keep all of them fed over time. So if we reduce the amount of Ohm getting printed, the income from our non-bond revenue will "increase" relative to the amount of Ohm in circulation. This means each Ohm is getting more fed compared to become more starved of nutrients each passing day. As protocol revenue can not increase in both speed and amount into infinity, we need to act in sooner rather than later, else we'd become a ponzi scheme that requires new money coming in every day.

    If we run out our runway (the pantry) it may cause more panic as people may feel we don't have enough food left to take care of all the Ohm. They might question and lose trust in Olympus being able to provide for the stakers.

    Again a reduction of APY is not about making stakers "lose" revenue by decreasing emissions. It's the complete opposite: ensuring stakers are taken care of and not starved over time.

        I still don't fully get if this proposal will start the APY reduction right after the voting ends or the plan to start it at 10M mark still holds and this voting is just preceding it for January… can someone respond to this please? thx

          MrMochi If we run out our runway (the pantry) it may cause more panic as people may feel we don't have enough food left to take care of all the Ohm. They might question and lose trust in Olympus being able to provide for the stakers.

          This is fair and valid and I don't necessarily disagree. But thus far the team has had good control over the levers that cause runway to increase or decrease and I wonder if the team feels confident enough with those controls to plan out an explicit countdown event for the runway. For instance say we maintain the current rewards emissions until runway is down to 100 days or even 200 days instead of doing so now. Is something like that feasible? If so it could bolster community confidence knowing it was all planned despite having to watch the runway number go down. I personally would feel more confident than I already do (and that's saying something!) knowing that the team thought they had enough control to accomplish something like this.

          Then again I guess the framework for emissions reductions is that countdown event but maybe just more abstract than having a hard line number like the runway countdown event I suggested? Just thinking out loud

            lukaskorba This would start the reward adjustment after the Snapshot vote finishes. The vote will go to Snapshot this coming week probably and last a few days. As you can see, the reward rate proposed is both the minimum reward rate in the current range we're in (1-10m), as well as the max reward rate for the next range (10-100m).

                json why is backing per coin good for individual holders? I can see why long term emission increase dilution, introduce selling pressure but don't understand how does the individual holder benefit short term / long term from this?

                  MrMochi "It's the complete opposite: ensuring stakers are taken care of and not starved over time." Are you saying it's basically for existing stakers value to be maintained? so in other words for those who hold a lot of OHM to be more secure holding it as OHM becomes more sustainable?

                      lot of people ITT not getting the effects of APY reduction. Its beneficial for protocol revenue, long term health and price. I do think we should go to somewhere above the minimum though, may 0.20% or something. 0.15 is fine too, just git r done.

                      this will shake out weaker hands, chase out short term investors and increase our liquidity to attract "big/smart" money. all for making OHM a more stable reserve currency it was always meant to be.

                      sure, lets get it done as planned once we hit 10m supply, finalize migration, turn up the bonds LFG

                        Dom98000 Yes at 10 million as planned. Let's get this migration done. And then we can go to triple digit apy. There should be an option for this when we vote. Also gohm should be able to vote on this.

                            shadow Will gohm holders be able to vote? If not may I propose we delay voting until they can.

                              we should stick to the original oip-18 and keep 7K APY till 10M. price just started to stabilize, a lot of recent investors are bleeding, at least give them a chance to partially recover with the 7K APY. Also, when people bought OHM in the last 2-3 months, they did so under the assumption that 7K would last until 10M. You should not change game rules while playing

                              yrys83 seems like this is not the case, it'll happen sooner than at 10M which I personally don't agree with but it also seems like we're going to be overvoted…

                                  lukaskorba Yes at current apy and without bonds we should hit 10 million around the 21st of January. Which is a month away. So by the time we go to snapshot and get voting done maybe another week 10 days. And after that the apy will slowly decrease to 999% in 4 weeks so we should be at around 9 million. Which seems ok TBH. Since if we had the bonds on we'd prob be over 10 mil.

                                  I hope everyone can vote using their gohm.

                                    I think IF OHM's focus is no longer on getting and retaining new retail investors then this is ok (and corect me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that this is the case…the focus has shifted to getting new OHM partners rather than retail investors for growth)

                                    But to be honest I would hold the APY as is if it were me. For the longest time we've talked about how "Price doesn't matter!" but now we are ALSO saying "APY doesn't matter!". It's a hard pill to swallow and I just think the messaging and TIMING for this reduction has to be carefully considered.

                                    1. OHM forks are still gaining traction with higher APYs and arguably some with higher engagement.
                                    2. The messaging for how OHM's use case is superior has NOT yet diffused to the masses and hasn't had time to soak in
                                    3. OHM approved projects had not had the time to prove their worth (KLIMA, ROME)

                                    with all that in mind, really to the average person the only thing they can definitively rely on when investing is the price and APY…

                                    I think we should wait for the migration to be over first and let things settle. This can get very confusing for people. If the migration was 100% completed a month or two ago I'd be ok with voting yes right now.

                                    MaskJiro

                                    Since migration to v2 is under going right now, it's complicated. Dashboard / Dune data seem to have kinda "glitches" atm, and we are not very sure if we have correct data set of the project.

                                    agreed. this is the sort of decision that would make more sense deciding when the data is not fuzzy.

                                      davegoldblatt Right now the APY is causing tokens to me minted faster than the treasury is growing. This puts downward pressure on the price. No one likes the price falling.