What's stopping someone from gaming this where they create multiple wallets?
OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction
Jaiel I understand this OGs vs Newbies mentality but how can you justify this?
OG Ohmies or people who have been here since inception for eg. deserve their rewards as there was a lot of uncertainty in the beginning, hence a higher risk associated.
Newer Ohmies are also important as OHM needs to be continually adopted to cement it's place as Defi's reserve currency.
I don't think there's needs to be this 'us vs. them' mentality. This proposal clearly benefits all that understand OHM's long term vision.
- Edited
I really hear your concern here Loop. However, let's say that this proposal passes.
This will be up for discussion for another 4 days (5 days in total).
It'll go to vote- another 3-5 days on scattershot.
Then it'll still take 3 weeks for us to hit the proposed reward rate change, it'll scale linearly.
All up, this is roughly the timeframe that you're proposing.
The DAO work their ass off to remain as transparent as possible because the Ohmies are what make this protocol special, right? Their opinions are valid and need to be taken into consideration. What's a currency if there's no community that use it or believe in it? In saying that, what I don't like about this sentiment is the complete disregard for our attempt to be extremely transparent in this situation.
The way that it's proposed could use some work but what's being proposed is needed for all Ohmies.
You'll still get your rewards. It's just a change in the emission schedule- the rate at which you receive your rewards.
As supply increases, it increases exponentially.
Revenue does increase exponentially.
This proposal is extremely bullish for those who understand the nature of the problem being solved here.
What good is OHM as a currency if revenue doesn't offset supply inflation?
I would love to hear your explanation here.
Mrloop actually changed his mind on his initial thoughts.
Volatility with an exponentially increasing supply does not make sense.
- Edited
My sense is that OIP-18 should not go to a snapshot vote, regardless of whether or not it is entitled to by capturing more than 50% of the poll vote. Clearly, with 40% opposed, it does not have overwhelming consensus. Zeus' OIP-19 is an example of the way a poll should go when an OIP is ready for a vote. Almost 100% in favor. That's consensus. Forcing something upon 40% who don't like it is one thing in politics; that 40% can't really "take their country and go home". But some portion of a disaffected 40% of Ohmies certainly can (and likely some will) cash in their chips and take their $$ to some other project. Not only will they take their dollars, but also their support and evangelization. Rather than excited and enthusiastic backers, we'll have a new cadre of folks who'll respond negatively when asked about the project, and their opinions will carry some extra weight with those on-the-fence, because they're actual former investors in the project.
Let's send this one back to the drawing board for some additional work. I get the technical reasons for pushing it. Let's see if we can come up with a better approach to achieving those goals that will bring a large portion of that 40% into the fold.
You are right - I could have expressed myself better.
I think the main point that I was trying to convey is that if you are in the protocol for the long term then this reward reduction is like an extra month on top of the 1 year rate of compounding to catch up - the only reason to be worried is if you are in for the short-term wanted to farm for a few months and then dump (not that there is anything wrong with that) and you should definitely vote against it if you are because this passing won't be in your interests.
I suppose the 'reduction to his wealth' statement makes sense if he is planning to dump cause otherwise it just moves the wealth (which just switches to PCV) a little into the future. So if this proposal makes the protocol stronger and all we have to do to make it work is compound for a short period longer then yeah I would say opposition is not rational. Very happy to try explain anything I've said further.
At 15k APY: 1 --> 150 ohm in 1 year
At 8k APY: 1 --> 150 ohm in approx 1 year 1 months 14 days
At 1k APY: 1 --> 150 ohm in approx 2 years and 2 months
Thank you for sharing. You’ve made some compelling points here. I’m going to read them again in the AM and reflect more on what you said.
Reducing rewards resulting in reduced bond demand is plausible. Previously I’ve seen reward reductions improve overall protocol health KPIs which is why I shared my perspective.
That said, I see your point and can see how the matter can be argued both ways.
Keep engaging ser. These discussions will make us stronger.
There sure are ser. I tried explaining my take in a thread I wrote on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/ishaheen10/status/1426312729220943875?s=21
Those objecting have raised some valid points as well. For now I’m going to read all the comments and reflect more. I recommend you do the same. Good luck ser.
As being new to this awesome project and appreciating the goals of it, I looked at it for a long while.
After making the decision to jump in with a moderate position of my portfolio, I thought to myself watch the rate get cut as soon as Im in….Here we are, as I plan to be fully allocated in a few weeks. Like everyone I understand why the proposal, but… also like most when doing due diligence from an outside view and finding these rate cuts so close together, pretty fast and seeing the blue sky APY, I would have passed.
Red flags are drawn: infant project, dreamy APY, first rate cut (understand), second rate cut about 1 month later. These may outweigh the clear vision of the project for most.
I know I haven't expressed anything new, but my thoughts as Im in it now, and a bit less excited
BTW, Whats Mark Cubans take?
I just want to highlight one thing in the forum here that relates to some of the comments I've been reading in Discord and some of the earlier replies here as well. And that is: you cannot take this informal poll on the forum as any quantification of how the community feels about this OIP. For one, there were reports yesterday from the mods that people were creating multiple accounts from the same IP address (that could have been used to vote obviously). This is pure voting manipulation. On top of that only a tiny, vocal minority of OHMies are actually active in the forum and on the Discord server. For the vast majority of them we simply have no way to quantify their responses until we do the snapshot itself.
So arguing that we should not proceed with a snapshot vote because this OIP feels too contentious is absolutely not valid. The informal poll is too easy to manipulate, and if we feel that this OIP is split between yeas and nays then it's all the more reason to actually do the snapshot and get a clear, objective overview on that.
From my side I fully support the policy team and I will vote option 1 when the snapshot goes live.
- Edited
for the many new Ohmies this must be repelling. even if this a good proposal for the future, it should be set out to take effect only in about 3,3 months.
so the majority of Ohmies (who came in just recently) can be included to understand the bare necessities on the way and still earn some rewards they were attracted by in the first place. anything earlier will drive away loads of disappointed willing participants = the exact opposite community effect that any currency wants.
with the amount of holders having grown fast: this is the point where financial psychology kicks in harder than economic 'facts'. no currency will survive which disappoints the majority of its supposed users.
Yannis his feels like giving up freedom for safety and it freaks me out because I see this will divide community.
I have to say I don't share the view of 'giving up freedom'. For me, the core idea in this proposal is behind this rationale in the OP:
shadow Each OHM is backed by at least 1 unit of RFV, we can’t mint without that. The backing comes from our revenue generating activities, mainly bonds at the moment. When we sell bonds, we mint OHM against 1 unit of RFV and sell it at a discount compared to the market price. This indicates that our revenue depends on the market price.
So, if we were to just expand supply without taking this into consideration, we’d tank our market price, and thus our revenue. No revenue - no supply expansion and no reserve currency.
Here’s a simple example showing this.
Case A: OHM is trading at $500. We sell 20 OHM and earn $10,000.
Case B: OHM is trading at $250. We sell 20 OHM and earn $5,000.
To clarify: the sustainability of the protocol depends on maintaining a premium. The protocol inflation is exponential, but the number of bonders isn't. Over time, the protocol needs to adjust the reward rate as the number of bonders who show up decreases proportional to the inflationary pressure of supply.
The last time the reward rate was reduced, the price of OHM increased in multiples and the number of Ohmies grew twofold while the Treasury experienced surprising levels of growth. We can hope to sustain the growth curve linearly, but sustaining exponential growth is impossible even in the short/medium term.
Yannis I propose a different idea.
Leave 60% - 80% rewards as they are for now.
Take 5% - 10% of the rewards and market sell into liquidity for ETH.
Take 5% - 10% of the rewards and market sell into liquidity for DAI.
Now you got 10% - 20% more in DAI and ETH reserves every single 8h.
I can't say I really understand this, but maybe it'll help to clarify that the Treasury does not directly earn from 3,3, instead, the Ohmies do, and the Treasury belongs to all Ohmies proportional to their ownership of the supply. The people who are able to sell are Ohmies. The DAO earns OHM from bond sales, though those funds remain largely untouched. As to what might happen to that OHM, you can check out OIP-19.
Yannis Take another 10% or 20% of the rewards and market buy 10 projects (each 1% or 2%) which are voted by the sOHM community by signaling their staking to a certain erc20 contract on ethereum. Have it so that every contract is maximum taken once every 9 times.
Interesting idea, but this once again goes back to OIP-19 . The community may vote on a new bond type, just like ETH bonds were passed just a few weeks ago
Yannis All I am saying is this: there are better ways to make OHM attractive and run for a long time than to "let's half apy by 50% and pump price so it's easier for -3,-3 to be dumping on 3,3"
APY has always been a faulty metric to express the compounding nature of sOHM.
At 15000% APY, 1 OHM -> 150 OHM in 1 year,
At 8000% APY, 1 OHM -> 150 OHM in 1 year, 1 month, 22 days;
so, visually, -50% APY seems like a lot but it's easy to forget what the staking sOHM curve actually looks like: starts off linear and turns exponential after a prolonged period of time which is exactly the nature of (3,3)
All in all, I'm very much in favor of this proposal: the health of the protocol means that all Ohmies than (3,3) for longer. It opens more doors as far as partnerships go and that means more implied utility behind OHM, and ultimately a wider adoption of OHM.
- Edited
edit: I changed my mind and I am FOR OIP-18 framework + rewards cut, see post here: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/77-oip-18-reward-rate-framework-and-reduction/55
and watch here: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/78-oip-19-approve-dao-to-pursue-strategic-swaps-with-holdings/24 for "decentralized ohmie-signaled erc20 buys"
Ye I revised my views:
https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/77-oip-18-reward-rate-framework-and-reduction/55
I think people are not understanding the other idea I got because they either don't think far enough or see I am making some wording mistakes and then discount the rest without further thought to it.
So let me clarify:
Now:
- APY is 18 000%
- What I propose does not exist as I propose it. I know about bonds, this is different, please stop telling me about treasury, bonds and so on.
After what I proposed:
APY is 9 000% or even less, doesn't really matter that much.
Put the difference of total OHM rewards between today's 18 000 % and e.g. 9 000 % APY into a variable diffRew
Take 33% of diffRew and buy up ETH, DAI, WBTC, tBTC, renBTC, basically established crypto + 'stable hyperinflating fiat' coins
Take 33% of diffRew and hold 18% of the 33% for 207 rebases and 15% for 324 rebases - these are incentives for long-term OHMIES explained later on. Sell them into WETH.
Take 33% of diffRew and split it up into 10x 3,3% Signal pool 1 to 10, each 3,3%
Let OHMIES choose from a LARGE drop down of erc20 when they individually stake their OHM.
The top 10 signaled erc20 gets bought by OHM. Every erc20 can only be chosen once every day (3 rebases) or every 3 days if chosen 2 days in sequence (9 rebases).
After 207 rebases, those OHM who signaled the top 3 erc20 that performed best - these OHMIES get 3%, 6% and 9% rewards if they still staking.
After 324 rebases, everyone who is still staking OHM can buy any of the erc20 baskets for a discount.
How is that erc20 discount financed for the long-term holders? Remember the 33%? Well we took 18% for those staking unto 207 rebases. The other 15% of those 33% are used to finance erc20 discounts accross the 10 different erc20 tokens that were signaled by OHMIES.
This would:
a) Create a massive marketing frenzy because every single erc20 token community has an incentive to get OHM in order to signal into their erc20 tokens.
b) Put selling pressure on OHM as well.
c) Divest OHM supply into various erc20 tokens curated by OHMIES - it would be wild and that's crypto, it's wild.
d) Provide huge incentives for long-term OHMIES.
e) …?
Now of course this would need some rough consideration and perhaps it is a staged deployment to test it all out.
One of the main issues when buying and staking OHM is that I cannot use those funds for other projects I love.