OIP-63: Reward rate adjustment

shadow

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).

yrys83

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

mtsireud

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?

mtsireud

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?

kubatha

mtsireud I think it's true. The success of OHM has always been (3,3), thus holding the price in order for the protocol accumulating assets. This has always meaning largest holders and longterm holders not selling their bags. Reducing APY meaning less ohms are minted for short term stakers to sell therefore preserve the price.

ptp1600

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.

dkedee

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.

Dom98000

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

yrys83

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.

lukaskorba

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…

zrcrypto

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

zrcrypto

One more thing, voting should be done only when gOHM holders can vote, not before

yrys83

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.

Kutu2

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.

OHM forks are still gaining traction with higher APYs and arguably some with higher engagement.
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
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…

BowTiedTigris

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.

machinejump

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.

thessalonius

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.

federico123

Doing too much too fast. Rushing this through only benefits the early adopters -- and gOHMers can't even vote. Is this whole proposal some kind of joke?

Kelsey

I'm in favor of lowering the APY for the health of Olympus, but I do share concerns over doing it too quickly. The V2 migration and confusion over gOHM caused shock among Ohmies and a drastic APY reduction can have the same effect. I'd recommend a gradual reduction that doesn't create unnecessary FUD among token holders who aren't aware of what's happening on the business side.

IMO, this conversation needs to heavily involve the marketing team to create a plan that anticipates community concerns, especially with the recent price drop already putting people on edge.

lukaskorba

Kelsey I might be wrong but why am I feeling that no comments here matter? Informal poll is saying yes, aka they WILL very likely implement it into the next snapshot so the reduction WILL happen. This is always problem when voting is the mechanism. Imagine 51% for YES and 49% for NO.. the worst case that could happen. This is not binary problem, I hope team will take time to read all comments here and consider next steps carefully, not just based on informal poll because that one is in favour of reduction… I believe this is very strategic move where timing, market, mood of ohmies, every dependency matter… true, also marketing matters…

and don't get me wrong, I want reduction just like many here, but I do believe right now is not the the right time.. especially when 60k people who joined us recently were said the reduction will happen in 2nd half of January.. it was the biggest topic in TG at least.. disappointment will be there for sure…

Owl

I mean there should be a necessary stop at 3,333% APY ?

If we reduce, can we ever go higher again if it doesn't bump the price eventually.

Number go up is important now.

« Previous Page Next Page »