• Proposal

  • OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction

billygoat33 Hi, I did some more math to hopefully demonstrate our suggestions and concerns.

Where do these scenarios derive from: Olympus DAO calculator

Using framework numbers .3058%

Scenario 1A

Starting Balance SOHM Staked: 1000

OHM price $300

Rebase Rate .3058% (high end of proposal rates initially)

Month 1 = 316.27

Month 2 = 732.56

Month 3 = 1280

This is just rewards emissions so after 3 months your new bag is = 2280 SOHM

 

Scenario 2A

Starting Balance SOHM Staked: 61

OHM Price: $300

Rebase Rate .3058% (High end of proposal rates initially)

Month 1 = 19.29

Month 2 = 44.69

Month 3 = 78.11

This is just rewards emissions so after 3 months your new bag is = 139.11 SOHM

 

Now with a tier system (I called it a band but the language doesn’t matter)

Scenario 1B
Starting Balance SOHM Staked: 1000

OHM Price: $300

Rebase Rate .15 (Band 5 qualified)

Month 1 = 144.42

Month 2 = 309.70

Month 3 = 498.85

This is just rewards emissions so after 3 months your new bag is = 1498.85 SOHM

 

Scenario 2B

Starting balance SOHM Staked: 61

OHM Price: $300

Rebase Rate .29% (Band 3)

Month 1 = 18.16

Month 2 = 41.73 (Progresses into Band 4 which reduces emissions to .20%)

Month 3 = 72.32 (Progresses into Band 5 which reduces emissions to .15%)

This is just rewards emissions so after 3 months your new bag is = 133.32 SOHM (slightly lower due to Band 4 and Band 5 Emission reductions)

 

Now you say – “the ohmie with 61 OHM doesn’t really get much of an emissions cut that’s not fair” That is because the hyper-inflation resides at the higher of the quantity spectrum NOT the lower end. All OHMIES will graduate eventually to Band 5 that begins where hyperinflation starts which is roughly 121 OHM. That is where the snowball affect of rewards emissions begins to unravel into drastic inflation where you can 2x , 3X, 4X, your ENTIRE bag month over month rollover. Before that it’s a slow growth to that level of distribution, that’s how compound interest works.

All OHMIEs graduate to Band 5 at some point, but everyone knows that point and time if it’s placed into a smart contract – We also protect the integrity of the MEME that has brought everyone to the protocol. This also protects front end growth for new OHMIES and the Back End integrity of the gains. It cuts emissions on the back end by roughly 60% “actually cutting inflation” where all the exponential inflation resides if you followed the scenario. While still benefiting those big bag OHMIES over 100 SOHM per month in gains + price appreciation (based on my scenario numbers – it would actually be much more for OHMIES holding more than 1000 SOHM. Everyone eventually “Graduates into the lower emissions, vs being forced into the lower missions before they attain any wealth growth – meanwhile those that already have bags, still have bags and we still have a protocol performing it’s mission.

 

Another issue right now is bonds will not be attractive if by the time they mature they are out of the money due to price depreciation below bond purchase price from high emissions and sell pressure. The proposal put forth offered steeper bond discounts to resolve that issue. However - Once we “effectively and ACTUALLY” cut emissions (inflation) / prices would in fact rise meaning we don’t need to discount the bonds more unless we want to grow treasury. But the bond discounts would then be a strategic decision to grow treasury vs being a technique to further expand survivability and prop up Market Cap.

Billygoat and others mentioned use case, absolutely, we need more use case that brings value to newly minted supply, “especially the unstaked supply”. The unstaked supply acts as a burden unless it’s given purpose.

      dns

      If I was a whale, I’d be losing out on over 800 OHM or $200k in your scenario. I would be making as many hot wallets as it takes.

      • dns replied to this.

          billygoat33 Regarding someone gaming the system via multiple wallets - who gives a sh*t?

          Can you present math showing that will negate an attempt to invert the emissions imbalance?

          There is and always will be some "bad actors", but with all the gigabrains we have in this community we can combat this issue? Let's get help from Chainalysis or we can roll our own, it really isn't that hard to detect multiple wallets. Fraud detection has been running in TradeFi land for years. We aren't going to stop every instance, but you can make it difficult enough that most won't bother.

          lejimmy

              I sort of like that solution…

              The reward rate should consider the small or low level stake-ers. Ones with less than 50 ohms are set to loose a lot and this reward rate reduction will kind of keep them away from 3,3. So its better to apply a minimum level of ohms from which the reward reduction should apply.
              Consider incentivizing low volume stake-ers.

                How about bonus rewards for the ohmies who has less than a certain number of ohms to make ohm attractive. Also how about reward for ohmies who has locked in their ohms for a certain period of time? Higher the lock higher the reward ?

                shadow

                explanations definitely should help. Can you address following during todays call:

                • please make sure its recorded
                • Can we create more detailed framework, embed it into protocol and let it do its thing automatically? pros and cons
                • Can we create Aludel like reward program? pros and cons
                • Is policy team working on voting power imbalance i.e. 3% controlling 71% vote. If we cannot make tiered reward rate mechanism, can we make a tiered voting where 75% of voting power would be in hands of 97%. This way 3% would need to make extra effort of creating multiple wallets if they want to push through something that actual community doesn't approve of. If possible this should be some kind of floating mechanism that would adapt as % change in future.

                    nakamomo6

                    Bigbabol

                    For those of us who have only been in this wonderful protocol for a few weeks this seems once again a bit of a quick decision…I just found out about it and I would like to read all of the posts…in principle I see this as a good action for all, but in order to vote and go deeper I feel I for one need more time…9 days may not seem like much to those who have been in for all the high APY's but I am just getting settled in and DCA'ing in every week or so…

                          dns

                          so in essence it actually encourages us little guys to stay in longer according to your proposal on bands…very cool I get that and then it also, addresses the desire for price not to fall too much for the benefit of the bond holders…is this correct assessment…if so then this all makes sense to me…nice piece…

                            dns

                            what I say once again is give us time to assess this proposal…there is not immediate deadline…I like what you are posting bro…I believe in this protocol, I am at the bottom DCA'ing in every week…give us all the same op…that seems to be what DNS is proposing…is there a panic on this…until I get more info I will vote no for now, but in principle I agree with the overall idea…is this truly a long term play or will I be driven away?

                              jdarryl

                              There is no reason to beat around the bush. Olympus needs to communicate better both in advance and in response to questions.

                              shadow nakamomo6 If you look at the ranges, we're already past the threshold for the new range (0.1587% - 0.3058%), which is 1m total supply.

                              I understand if you are busy but it's better to say so than to give a non-answer. The fact that Olympus had a very fast change in rewards before doesn't mean that it was a sound decision.

                              I felt like there was no point in making my voice heard but here goes. Olympus needs to figure out which market conditions that are relevant to the rewards emissions rate and adjust it dynamically and very slowly. I'm getting the impression that there really is no understanding for the importance of being predictable - OHM is a long term hold so act like it.

                              Edit: I should add that I'm not a new ohmie. I have studied the protocol and understand the dynamics to a reasonable extent.

                                    billygoat33

                                    Nobody said that the distribution is a problem. It is like this in most cryptocurrencies, a free market, where people who have capital to deploy can buy up more than people with less capital. We all had the same opportunity here, I'm sorry you couldn't buy as much as some other people, but that is not on us to fix, but yourself. The value the protocol gets is at least the same from "small" and "big" holders alike.

                                    I would argue that the large holders actually add more value to the protocol through governance participation. Why? Because people who hold a larger share tend to be more involved and interested in the protocol. They would research and make sure they have a good understanding of proposals, as well as be very vocal in the case that we're steering the ship in the wrong way. This added value comes at the same cost in terms of proportional rewards paid.

                                    I really want to get this across - this is not something the Policy team would ever consider. Punishing the largest believers and token holders is not something any project would do. Secondly, the individuals proposing this seem to be okay with reaping the benefits of price appreciation when these big investors purchase OHM on the market, or revenue growth when they bond, but do not want to share the rewards proportionally.

                                    Lastly, it doesn't make sense to me that people advocating this want a "fair distribution" and equality while they are willing to skew the rewards in their favor. What you propose is value destruction and the dilution of the biggest believers in the project.

                                        nakamomo6

                                        I understand, we've recognized the need for predictability and have thus come up with this framework. The last reward rate reduction was proposed 2 months ago, and this is a 15% reduction of that rate. I do not think that is a large change by any means, given where where we land after it.

                                          shadow

                                          So decentralization is just a buzzword to throw around and not a goal. got it..

                                              shaydinblue

                                              There are no barriers to entry, if you want to buy off the market and make it "more decentralized" then by all means go ahead. Decentralization is not just a buzzword for us, and the contributors to this DAO will surely agree with me on that. The forum is meant for meaningful contribution and discussion, so please treat it as such.

                                                rgscg

                                                ever since I have been an ohmie only 1 month now I keep reading and listening to ohmies who say price is somewhat irrelevant…has that meme changed now and is price more important…if APY goes down and price jumps aren't we encouraging people to dump…I'd be tempted, but as long as price is going down and APY is going up I am buying more…am I missing something here…? my goal is to build my stack…in the last rate cut people were saying that lower price and lower APY would be better to attract more people…what has happened since I joined we have gone from 6700 ohmies to 10K plus in a month…so it seems lower APY as well as price have brought more people in, but market cap has gone down from $460 Million to$ 304 today…not sure if I understand any of this, but those are the facts…I think it's too early for another rate cut…allow those who are early taking the risk to gain more rewards…the whales deserve what they have received because they took the bigger risk…and those of us who have been paying the piper these high premiums deserve more time to build out our stack…do I honestly know what is the best path not even remotely…but I voted no because I want more time to understand the what for's…I want what's best but so far most of the responses are more or less for it, but not just yet…and the vote is going towards adoption of this proposal…so what does that tell you?

                                                  plutus

                                                  I think most people here agree it will be long term benefit and it seems that in reading all the posts if we took a poll many of are just asking for a little more time…that's not unresonable and I believe the vote would go to "for" in a much higher %…I want to vote for it, but I just got here today the last day…and I still don't have a handle on it…as I stated don't diss on the early adopters, they deserve what they have for the risk…and we newbies, who overwhelmingly love this protocol just want our moment of time…and our voices to be heard…not to much to ask from both sides…

                                                      dns

                                                      Broadly speaking, you will never be able to defeat Sybil attacks.

                                                      Your scenario assumes ohmies won't split their wallets before they reach a higher band, which i can assure you many will. Especially the big wallets, who have the most to lose. It's trivial to make new wallets these days.

                                                      You're a business owner, surely you understand the benefit of lowering taxable income to get into a lower tax bracket? This is exactly what would happen, except it'd be so much easier to do with wallets.

                                                      The result i foresee with your scenario is that the vast majority of OHM sits in wallets in the first band or two. This would completely defeat the purpose of your proposal, while adding unnecessary friction and complexity.

                                                        shaydinblue

                                                        I'd like to understand the points you're making more clearly but first let me say this:

                                                        We are all still very early here! Yes, some were earlier than others and took on huge risk - not many of the presalers actually held onto their OHM because it was scary as well to do in the earlier days and noone knew if this would work. Most large holders bought and held.

                                                        This trajectory was always planned - you cant inflate to infinite. The goal was always to start sky high and end up in a place with minimal inflation where OHM is a relatively stable currency. Today, we're still in a place of super high inflation and will remain so after this cut- as a new holder, you can still greatly "grow your stack."

                                                        To address your concern about price vs supply. Price in and of itself should never be the goal but maintaining a premium over RFV is a goal - the protocol needs to maintain that premium in order to bring in profits to distribute to stakers. If not, we can keep the reward rate high and watch as the premium shrinks and runway disappears such that we will all get fewer rewards in the long run. Its a delicate balance. All holders benefit from this, big and small.

                                                        You say that you recognize that the inflation rate is a problem but that its "baked into the protocols' design." Firstly, this is patently false, see above.

                                                        Irrespective of the reward rate, rewards are limited by RFV in the treasury which is used to mint new OHM - ignore APY and other headline numbers. So lowering the reward rate doesnt change the amount of OHM you will receive over time as an individual holder, it just spreads it out over a couple more months and allows the protocol to grow in a more healthy manner so that the RFV and sum of all future rewards can be greater. Again, this benefits everyone on a pro rata basis.

                                                        If your concerns are more than selfishly trying to grow your bag a little faster now without regard for the protocol, please feel free to DM and I'd be happy to chat further.

                                                        PS - Despite, your false claim about the policy team being OG ohmies, there have been many new ohmies who have joined the policy team recently. Anyone who wants to get involved should apply, demonstrate their understanding of the protocol and interest in helping it grow, and join!