• Proposal
  • OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction

shadow

I like the initiative, but I still think it's too early for newcomers to come in with a lower reward threshold even though some whales are snowballing into rewards. We are still in the expansion phase, I still think we need to delay this initial proposal a few more months!

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.

    I disagree with this proposal. I will note no.

    I am in agreement with MrLoop. He noted 100% of my concerns.

      Bearded_Wotanist

      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

        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

          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.

          shhpoodlet5-25-2

          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?

          Mark11

          Mark11 saying it is too quick is an illogical crutch for an emotional response to perceived reduction in your potential wealth

          You are calling valid arguments "illogical". Who are you? Mr Spock. I own a lot of sOHM. I think that this proposal is rushed and will have an effect opposite of what is intended. Why is it illogical for him to oppose a reduction in his wealth? Since you are super logical, apparently, whose perceived wealth should he care about? Logically, I mean. You're whole response is just abusive, not persuasive. If you don't ike it get out. Obviously, people are free to sell any time. Saying this is in his long term interest, no doubt about it. Then you add an exclamation point. That's just your opnion man. Oh wait. That's just your opnion man!!! Is that more convincing?

            dns

            What's stopping someone from gaming this where they create multiple wallets?

            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.

            MrLoop

            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.

            DefiCryptoBorg

            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?

            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.

              shhpoodlet5-25-2

              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