OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction
- Edited
I agree with your sense that a lot of comments are asking for "just a little more time". On the one hand, I get that. On the other, I understand the motivation behind the proposal is that the treasury versus supply growth problem is not a mirage, and action needs to be taken fairly soon. After all, it's the RFV in the treasury that provides the real value behind Ohm, the value to which the market then applies some premium based upon discounted present value of future earnings. With all this in mind, I posted earlier about "a better approach". I firmly believe that a very slow, steady (daily) algorithmic adjustment of the reward rate is the right solution to the problem that addresses everyone's concerns. I don't think the "stairstep" approach of this and the previous rate adjustment is the right answer, as it will always be controversial with some, and (my guess is) usually cause some price turmoil, too.
I couldnt make the call due to my primary line of work, however i downloaded the file and listened and it was a good call and made people very relatable. I hope in the future i can actually have a chance to inject. Plutos "your a smart man - great suggestions".
I do not disagree with cuts, anyone who read my comments will see i actually am saying cuts to inflation are actually not deep enough. The exponential curve remains exponential. I am not being a hypocrite as my position resides on the exponential end and from the start i never understood how i could possibly attain 14 million dollars based on my position after only one years investment - purely unsustainable. But i love the protocol and vision and that is why i advocated so fiercely for additional cuts.
However, i do think a proper balance of salesmenship, marketing and optics has to be maintained to protect the newer investors with very small "bags" from the deeper on the curve investors. That is my secondary argument to protect the integrity of the message our community put forth to the crypto community as a whole that served as a rally cry. Look, 7k, 6k, even 3k apy is better then ANYTHING else in crypto, im a yield hound i know ive checked. I only invest in high yield. Had i found OHM when it first began i would have absolutely invested. If i used twitter (i dont) i would have found ohm earlier in the game. Im invested in quite a few riskier apy projects right now, i like to catch them when they need money the most because thats when they "need my money and will pay me for it". I was invested in zerogoki when the apy was like 978,000% and no thats not an exaggeration - its not their anymore is the point, now it sits at about 13,000% apy. APYs come down as is neccesary, and so anyone that thought i advocated against the drop, incorrect. I am also OCD on efficiency which makes me good in business. So i looked at where the cuts were most needed and could still benefit growth. Thats where my idea came from. If you got to fire people you start with the highest paid, least effective - typically thats the person no one likes so it doesnt hurt morale. My idea addressed the cuts where they should start, highest paid least beneficial by means of the amount of sell pressure and excess volume the higher end of the spectrum accumulates. All that supply produced cant be reduced once minted and the higher end of the curve produces ALOT of supply.
Anyway, i enjoyed the call, while i still cannot support the OIP-18, i do hope this message can at least reassure folks that OHM still has some of the best yield out their. Also, i kept the discussion in here out of respect to the community. I did not want this perceived as FUD or disinformation so i gathered the people most likely to be a bit more serious about the protocol would debate here vs in the open discord where its a free for all of FUD, open interest and opportunists. But thats my final piece on OIP-18, I will crawl back under a rock until their is another debate to be had. Cheers and again great call!
- Edited
- I am saying their is a disproportionate amount of selling happening amongst large holders of OHM and have continually asked for anyone to prove me wrong with hard data.
- You are making an assumption as to my demographic within the distribution.
- I did not have "the same opportunity" as you - nor does anyone that comes to the project after inception; however, I did find my way here and have been invested.
- I sincerely hope you think "small" Ohmies can bring as much or more value to this project than "big" Ohmies as your response reads otherwise. Your work on Dune, answers in chat, and overall dedication to this project was one of the original attractions for me because this is a very different community. Please don't insinuate that someone with the smallest amount of OHM can't be as valuable or a bigger believer in the project than someone with the most - though you are welcome to your opinion if that is your belief.
- @abipup I understand hyper-inflation affects all holders the same, sorry if my posts seem otherwise.
- Yes, I also understand you can't tax the rich as they will adjust their strategy. If no one ever presents dissenting opinions or alternate solutions the road often leads nowhere.
- Yes, I am keenly aware that not all of the community are single real persons. Losing Arondight and others definitely does not help market price stability. Speaking of which has policy though about deepening the pools, though that's an exit balance dance as well.
- What I really wanted was a discussion about the income side of the equation which was barely addressed on the community call. At the start it was mentioned @abipup had analytics to share about the current situation - that never happened. Inflation must be reduced - no argument, we are discussing best methods - and must be equally applied throughout the distribution. I would still love to see data that shows correlation of "reducing rates is bullish" versus potential environmental meta correlation. Anyhow, inflation adjustments are just prolonging a slow death without increase of revenue. It seems the policy has lots of ongoing projects to address this issue, but should consider being more forth coming. Not everyone is on the policy team, nor can most spend their day in Discord, but an ever increasing number of people, from all walks of life, are finding Olympus - they need to be encouraged to stay and not all will be okay with "well the jigga brains said so".
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.
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.