I personally think both suggestions are great, decreasing apy will lead to healthier growth, framework will add much needed predictability … which is my biggest concern here. If you would come here and say, we wanna reduce the APY, 4 weeks from now (for example) during 14 days perioed, I would be totally fine with that. You've came here "from the sky", proposed this thing with immediate action after the vote will be accepted, I don't like this approach :-) Should be served better next time.
OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction
Only whales and presale buyers will benefit from that change, they got a big headstart . For regular people who bought recently, especially at ath, its a very bad change. But of course whales will push the vote through , they have the most tokens
All that talk and graphs about runways for different APYs now appears to have been just enticements to bring in newbies.
I take it that is the end of runways.
Too true about wallets with most tokens pushing this vote through.
I've never seen anything like this since buying my first ohm in early April. This level of community concern would've at minimum considerably slowed down the process.
But now we're just mowing over everyone and pushing this thing through with changes going into effect "immediately".
Very concerning.
I mean check the result on this poll here…. 35% of people said No to the framework and No to the reward reduction.
But this isn't weighted voting so you get a headcount type result on the poll.
The snapshot vote will breeze through because it's all about wallet size. So could be just top 20% in favor but it'll look like a landslide.
This is not how Olympus used to operate.
sure, but due to this proposal, the rate of induction of new OHMies has slowed to almost zero, many have unstaked and tanked the price - which has led to the opposite of the goal of this proposal as the premium on bonding has reduced by 100%. So, please elaborate on efficiency? And please explain why it is not feasible?
This is about longer term fren if people want to leave because the reward rate decreases then they were always going to leave better sooner than later. It is inefficient for a general algo to set theses rates to 365 days because this may not be optimal runway depending on demand - it is not feasible because no one has written such an algo and it would require extensive testing
Its so funny how the devs only argument is "its better for you, you just dont understand! Its optimal!"
As for me, I learned enough from this forum. Leaving as soon as my investment goes even.
Also now I get it, why there is a "Is this a ponzi scheme?" question in FAQ. Because now it really looks like a ponzi Not in the traditional sense, but with same concept where only early whales and first investors (presalers) profit.
Agreed while I have more Ohm then that the reductions are a bit much, and at a certain point I see it leading to the "end" of ohm. How can one be an Accohmulator with 1000%/100%/25%/6% apy
What happen to "dont look at the price" meme?
If we reach those APYs it'll mean that we all already made it fren - in that respect if we make it to those APYs and have (3,3)'d the whole way then price won't matter - key is integrations as treasury asset for other protocols
Just a quick comment from the peanut gallery. It’s interesting how the market cap seems to be stabilizing as voting results become more certain.
It’s likewise interesting how, in this experimental universe of “code is law,” that social identity and self-categorization come to the surface – old ohmies vs new ohmies, non-whales vs whales, etc. Aside from being the bread and butter of unconventional warfare doctrine, that can also be a brilliant marketing strategy.
Actually, that’s a great sales pitch for people being both happier, and materially better off, with AI mediation of human cognition. Hmmm.
Market cap is stabilizing because overall market is trending south.
Haven't you noticed yet? When BTC and market goes bull, OHM cap shrinks. When market hints bear, everyone comes running back into ohm.
Has little if anything to do with this proposal while still in voiting.