silent_mastodon I don't think new people will be eating a "shit sandwhich". The proposal should reduce sell pressure and also reduce the amount of OHM created. Ask yourself, would you rather have 100 OHM worth 10 dollars or 10 OHM worth 1000 dollars? I believe the strength of the token due to the emission change will out weight the gain from a high APY.
OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction
Thank you working on this framework and rate proposal. I know it’s not easy putting these together. My only concerns would be new ohmies onboarding with the reduced rate and losing the appeal of the protocol. I know the high APY is not what defines Olympus but it’s a great marketing point for a curious investor to look into and dive deeper. In the age of ever increasing Defi protocols, Olympus must maintain the edge for the bootstrap phase. I do think it’s a little too early for this. Maybe delaying it until we have more funds in the treasury (higher RFV) and utility for sOHM is my suggestion.
- Edited
I think staking with a increased rate based on the amount of time you are in would be better. That way you don't need to worry about the whales rebase hopping. I've said this before an still think it's better than locked savings. It rewards Ohmies that stake and stay and doesn't reward those whales that don't. As the saying goes
TIME IN OHM > TIMING OHM
Let's do just that. If you have you ohm staked for X period of time you get A% and as time goes on you you have staked for Y period of time and get B%
Example: (using your tables rates)
1-10 days .0019%-.0039%
11-30 days .0039%-.0148%
31-60 days .0148%-.0458%
61-90 days .0458%-.1186%
91-120 days .1186%-.1587%
121-150 days .1587%-.3058%
151 days and above .3058%-.04583%
Pasta
If this is about reducing sell pressure, I'm actually more against it than before.
I think DeFi users are overly concerned with sellers. People are going to sell no matter what.
What matters more is retaining the desirability of the token. If this proposal makes some integration easier (as mentioned) it would be great to be more concrete about why that is true. What actual integration(s) are we talking about, and how does OHM fit in? Why is an OHM with this emissions schedule better than an OHM with the current set up, in that context?
I hold very little OHM, because I didn't have any more dry powder when I learned about it just a couple of weeks ago. So my vote isn't going to matter much either way. That said, I'd feel better if I could see something more concrete about how this change improves desirability.
Bearded_Wotanist This is a great idea, however I think the difficulty would be in the implementation, as little effort is required to "game the system", a single OHMie could have many accounts.
dns agree with this. Instead of decreasing APY based solely on total supply, it should be based on how much ohm a single wallet is holding. Give ranges similar to the framework where the more you hold, the less your rebase rewards. This will help encourage more users to the protocol and reduce the power of the whales
- Edited
cabanaboy1977 I have mentioned this before in response to locked staking, similar to the way Aludel rewards (within a Crucible) work in the Alchemist protocol. The longer you are staked, you gain a reward multiplier, if you unstake any portion, you lose the multiplier. But at the same time, you can have multiple subscriptions, so you can add to your investment with additions starting at the base multiplier. It is a great Idea.
- Edited
Seems like we would be in the supply range between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 for quite a while with the lowered apy % and if we stuck at the top e.g. %10,000 for quite some period (which would be my expectation) then this would be a very good improvement. It will also make it more difficult for current or future whales to come along and screw with us (3,3)ers.
I think a lot of new Ohmies are worried that they took a risk at a price with a recent entry and will feel that their chance to increase their OHM holdings in a bootstrapping phase is being snatched away - I guess the answer to this is that it's all proportional no matter what the apy is. If price goes up it just means that someone is buying from the protocol and will obviously be putting that to staking which makes apy go down. We really don't know what the price will do - it could go ath or atlnext week.
TLDR imo longer runway is better for Ohmies and a better meme than 17,000% apy vs 10,000% apy (also I am smol brain so this could be totally wrong)
- Edited
edit: changed my mind about oip-18 and I am for it now, see post here: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/77-oip-18-reward-rate-framework-and-reduction/55
and see here: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/78-oip-19-approve-dao-to-pursue-strategic-swaps-with-holdings/24 for the more mature idea of 'decentralized ohmie-signaled erc20 buys'
This feels like giving up freedom for safety and it freaks me out because I see this will divide community.
One main reason I am staking my OHM 3,3 is because I count on other people to sell who don't do the research, who don't trust the game theory or the high APY % rewards and who sell into other projects or into DAI.
I realize that 17000% APY is not sustainable for ever.
But everyone else had 17000% and higher until now. So now they want a higher price? Why? To exit?
Is this all about -3,-3? I know it sounds harsh but I am questioning motive in this one hard.
I do realize there is a valid point but this is crypto, this is not classical colleague and university economics that brought the USD and with it the whole world to hyper-inflate because of some weirdos owning the shares to FED and European banks.
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.
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.
What will this create? It will be the new crypto-twitter of every single decentralized erc20 project that competes for those 1% - 2% slots to get attention on sOHM owners. They will all be buying OHM and do 3,3 for sOHM.
You won't have to worry about OHM not selling, it will self itself.
Trigger the buys for the erc20 on random (or TA optimized) times within the next 9 cycles. Have it skip if slippage doesn't allow a good buy.
Now allow people with sOHM who have staked for 30+ days to buy some of these erc20 index funds at reduced rates. This would be a great incentive to be staking OHM for more time.
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"
Thanks!
And @shadow please don't take this the wrong way - I know something is needed and I am glad this is discussed.
- Edited
I voted for, but would like to add one possible change (being optimistic here) Is there a way to change reward rate not only based on the total supply, but also based on the runway? Meaning, if runway increases a lot and gets to x days/x months, that the reward rate goes up again? I think finding that balance between runway and reward rate, is the name of the game, as I am sure there are a lot of "now" peeps that runway longer than say a year does not matter to... (3,3)
- Edited
I'd like to make two points. First, that OHM is a very new project and while growth has been excellent for the time it's been around, the project is still far from mainstream even in the ETH community. I believe we need to incentivize this same level of exponential growth to continue for some time longer before the protocol will grow to its potential from its own momentum.
Second, on the topic of incentives for growth, an argument can be made that a supply reduction results in an increase of price, and so these two things are an equivalent trade in the consideration of this proposal. I don't believe this is true. In the crypto markets, even the largest projects have insane price volatility, and it's very difficult to reliably draw patterns between fundamentals and price action. Because of this, I believe investors will weigh protocol guaranteed returns much more than the concept of price appreciation, especially those new to OHM who do not fully understand how the protocol works. So even if in practice this is an equivalent trade, favoring price appreciation over APY will be harmful to growth.
Yannis This feels like giving up freedom for safety and it freaks me out because I see this will divide community. I agree with this, and it is how I feel about locked staking. The same system that the Aludel Crucible (Alchemist) has, solves all of these problems.
But on the issue of selling rewards for DAI, ETH this is a bit self defeating as it is really just a tax on protocol owned liquidity, reducing market depth. This may work if OHM was listed on say Binance, where it could be sold into that liquidity (non-protocol owned) and is diluted over a larger market base.
- Edited
edit: changed my mind, see post here: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/77-oip-18-reward-rate-framework-and-reduction/55 and here: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/78-oip-19-approve-dao-to-pursue-strategic-swaps-with-holdings/24
rgscg Yes.
And know that: HIGHER PRICE = HIGHER INCENTIVE TO SELL.
My main argument is that this is a major change for the protocol, has 40% voting against, and should be discussed over time so we can hash out all these arguments, such as the integration one (which isn't explained in detail in the proposal). The current proposal is happening too fast, which is why I'm voting against.
At least in my mind, this doesn't jive with all the messaging, tweet storms, podcasts I've seen. We need to evolve the messaging first and then work out this long term plan.
- Edited
Yannis Fren, price has to stop somewhere what do you propose with this - we could just give 1,000,000% apy? In the end silly ppl are gonna dump on (3,3) no matter what - we don't have a good solution for that but the higher the apy the quicker the (-3,-3) scheme plays out, if we force them to wait a bit longer maybe they go chase some other investment.
Longer runway with 10,000% apy is better for (3,3) imo.
Mark11 Sure. So I'm not opposed to a decrease in APY. But this needs to be carefully balanced with the need for growth and the runway and so on. I think I am opposed to the framework. Rather, I think 1) we should not set future expectations rigidly at this point in time, and 2) these changes should be introduced carefully, and perhaps gradually, not with only a two week notice to those who may not follow governance closely.