Supply is currently increasing exponentially and revenues increase linearly.
This is not a sustainable future for the protocol. Let's adjust now.
The reward rate decrease helps lower 5D ROI & makes bonding attractive to support growing inflow.
Supply is currently increasing exponentially and revenues increase linearly.
This is not a sustainable future for the protocol. Let's adjust now.
The reward rate decrease helps lower 5D ROI & makes bonding attractive to support growing inflow.
Anyway information about this proposal should go to main stacking website, not all Ohmies are living on Discord. There will be many OHMIES not even knowing there is some proposal, nor voting.
After doing some more thinking, and taking in consideration the ~ 3 weeks we're going to have of more-or-less 17k% APY, I am changing my vote to option 1. I still think that it's bad optics not telling new people sooner (even now, why are we not putting a link to this proposal near the APYs?), but I think long-term this is a good decision, even though I don't like the method it's been communicated.
See also this tweet thread which does a good job explaining the benefits.
Something that hasn't been touched on yet:
- This proposal will increase price, bond incentive and revenue. The argument that new OHMies are in the red because of a price drop and need time @ high rewards is asinine, this is because the longer we keep this high compounding APY with linear or falling bond revenue, the lower the price will go.
- I was one of the people that bought above $1100, at the depth of the lows, the APY was cut, allowing bonds to be better incentivized and kick starting the revenue engine. We are now redlining at this APY, and need to shift to second gear, which is:
Reducing APY -> Making Bond discounts more attractive + lower supply growth -> increasing revenue (& RFV per OHM) + increasing price
You bought into a stable coin experiment with high risk and high reward, the protocol shouldn't give a **** what proportion of people are in the green, the only thing it should concern itself with is balancing price, bond revenue and supply in order to grow to billions of OHM in supply at >= $1 RFV and keep this fairly execution risk mitigated engine that we have created so far humming along for the long term.
I think new OHM holders who have i boarded in the past few weeks May find this very unattractive. With the price drops a lot of them are in the red and this would further prolong the process for their good outcomes.
Additionally I am not clear how does this reduce price volatility.
Lastly if are run rate and revenue is not changing why are we looking to change the rate today and not instead in a gradual few month process so anyone new who joins today knows this is on the cards and can accordingly decide their engagement instead of doing it within the next two weeks!
Adopt framework and Reduce reward rate should be 2 separate proposals.
If not separated then more voting options must be provided. The options currently presented are not comprehensive and force a choice from what appears to be a biased answer set.
At minimum, a 4th choice to implement framework, but do not change rewards should be available.
But also should be options to indicate acceptance but only if implementation of framework and/or reward reduction occurs on a longer timeline.
This is excellent, and point 7 especially there has been marketing done around 10k APY very very recently. False promises abound and people will feel sour. You might also press sellers into a short 2 week window prior to APY dropping.
What is going to happen without new funds or trading fees.? I started buying two weeks ago and am still under water but was ok with that as I was looking long term. I was going to dollar cost average in alot more funds but I'm going to reallocate those funds into one of the many other opportunities out there until this gets straightened out. This change makes the near term outlook on this project look alot more riskier than before since this incentive for new funds to come in will be greatly diminished which reduces the long term survivability of the project.
Could someone explain why they assume a whale would be more likely to dump if they are earning less per rebase than if they are earning more? Seems like an irrational fear.
If it's because you think the price will be higher, isn't that good for you too? I don't understand.
Also worth noting that APY is never guaranteed in DeFi. In other projects, yields can be cut in half overnight with no notice just because a lot of money got dumped into the pool. Nothing about making the protocol healthier, just someone came in to scoop up more for themselves. Too bad.
The fact we're getting what amounts to a few weeks advance notice about a decrease to prolong longevity and health is pretty great comparatively. Not to mention we're still looking at a 70-100x return per year. Concerns about people down 20% not getting to breakeven "long-term" are unfounded unless their investment timeline is two weeks.
When the time to decrease the rate rolls around again, anyone who stays in will be accused of "pulling up the ladder" for newbies. Just like they were the first time, before market cap went up 4x for all hodlers. There will always be new people that claim it's not fair and want a few more months at the current rate, even if that's detrimental to the protocol to do so.
If they wanted the same returns as people who took on more risk, they should have taken on the same risk and bought earlier. It's like saying it's unfair to earn more when you buy 10 BTC at $1k instead of 1 BTC at $10k.
That being said, now that we have a general framework it should definitely be communicated to try and minimize that aspect.
+1 for long term thinking, -1 for three week thinking. I trust that the policy team has more information than I do. Thanks for engaging. Excited for the rate reduction. Nothing is ever set in stone in the world of DEFI. I take sustainability over a vanity APY.
If you are feeling burned, DCA folks. It is your best friend when holding a bag.
yes please framework, creating an emissions schedule is so bullish.
Also reward rate desperately needs to come down; because of the exponential nature of rewards, we must constantly scale them back as the supply grow.
Giving lower returns to wallets with high sOHM would cause adverse effects:
1) Large sOHm holders would have less incentive to hodl, hence large sales would be more common and the price would tank. 2) People would split their sOHm into multiple wallets so that all the wallets would get the highest return.
The result of this vote will simply be a division between the OG's and newbies. If I were here for enough time to at least double the number of OHMs I have staked, I would also prioritize the well-being of the protocol. That would be a very noble thing to do.
As soon as you become the HAVEs, you completely forget about how it was when you were HAVE-NOTs. It's not that I don't care about the protocol. I do understand what is supposed to be done. I just cannot afford this idea until I become rich enough like you, OGs.
I am not saying that we should never apply this reduction. Please give me enough time to become one of you guys.
Asfi, i respectfully disagree with several of your arguments
Asfi All else equal, backing per OHM should rise faster with this change
In fact, "all else" will not be equal. By reducing APY quickly and drastically, the protocol risks a severe drop in the price of OHM. Why? Because, the premium paid for OHM (15-20X) the RFV is justified by the extremely high APY. Cut the APY and you cut demand. If demand decreases the premium decreases. Price could drop dramatically and that could have a cascading effect.
Asfi curtailing rewards rate will be akin to a halving event of sorts. This will reduce sell pressure
Sell pressure may actually increase if the proposal is passed. Price may not act in the way you predict. I know that supply/demand theory assumes that stemming the massive inflation in OHM will need to higher price per OHM. yes, in the long term. But you ignoring the short term psychological effect of: 1) reducing the incentive to hodl 2) reducing the premium people are willing to pay. Look at equity P/E ratios as an example. A fast growing tech company like Tesla has a much higher P/E than a utility company. Why? Because the former has much greater prospects of growth and stock price is basically based on a forward prediction of profits. Cutting the APY of Olympus could cut the premium OHM buyers pay.
We all know that 17,000% isn't sustainable, but cutting the APY again so quickly after the last cut smacks of desperation. It divides the community. Community cohesion is critical. You think 3 to 4 weeks is adequate advance notice but the thousands of small time owners, normies and minnows who just got into OHM and staked 10 grand because that's a lot of money to them, they aren't going to hear about this tonight. They aren't on discord every night.
In conclusion, this proposal seems rushed and it is poorly worded. The consequence of this passing may be entirely the opposite of what you are predicting.
SpacemanJeff If they wanted the same returns as people who took on more risk, they should have taken on the same risk and bought earlier.
This statement is needlessly divisive and obnoxious. They couldn't have bought earlier because they never heard about Olympus DAO. The project has practically no marketing. I am OK with not spending a lot on marketing because it has led to organic growth and people who learn about Olympus and decide to buy are generally more informed than the hundreds of thousands of people who ape into the over-hyped cute doggy meme coins. But I have been investing and following crypto for years and didn't hear about Olympus until late May. I'm sorry I didn't buy in at $4 and take all the risk that early investors took.
I completely agree with you! People are only talking about increasing the price by reducing the supply, but supply isn't the only factor in the equation! Just like you said, I am sure the demand will go away. Who will hop into the boat that is sinking so fast like that?
Nobody thinks this insane APY is sustainable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But halvening the APY over 2 weeks period sounds so scary that general public won't even take a look at this project anymore. Result? No Demand! Now how will you increase the price when one of factors in the equation is 0?