OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction

rgscg I think this is why long runway is so important and 17,000% apy vs 10,000% apy difference matters less

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.

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.

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.

shadow looks like a proposal for the whales who are going to cash out. As a new ohmie, it all of a sudden doesn't look like a great investment for someone in my position with a small bag

Just wanted to make one more comment:

_Case A: OHM is trading at $500. We sell 20 OHM and earn $10,000.
Case B: OHM is trading at $250. We sell 20 OHM and earn $5,000.

Said differently, in order to achieve the same revenue as in case A, we’d have to sell 40 OHM in case B._

Although this might be true, most people invest a specific $ amount, So they invest for example $20,000 in Ohm, and that would mean treasury would still roughly make the same.

PatchoEscobar
As one more high level request, as mentioned in the policy channel, I think it could be worth putting a banner on the site indicating that this change might be coming to minimize anyone feeling blindsided. Noting that this could come with some FUD but a lot of the OGs and smart folks seem to think this change is a good idea (myself included, if it's moved further out timewise), and I think that it is repairable FUD if any. Just encourages community transparency.

Irv86 people said the same thing when APY went from 100k to 15k. It worked out fine for everyone involved.

shadow I know about rari, what other integrations are there? rn? in process?

SpacemanJeff can guarantee the ones with smaller bags were not as pleased as the holders with larger bags

SpacemanJeff I hear you and I'm just expressing views from my current situation of 2ohm.

Concur with many others' thoughts. I would like to hear more about what problem we are solving here. How does this proposal make integrations easier? Why not ramp the reward rate down over some longer period than 2-wks? Feels a bit rushed and I'm still not completely clear on the rationale however with more information, I could change my mind - just haven't seen it to this point.

Separately, I agree that this proposal will leave a sour taste in many of our new ohmies' mouths. I think someone mentioned that 45% of OHM holders have joined in the last month. A growing and diversified base of OHM holders is extremely beneficial and this seems to move us in the opposite direction. This ties to many peoples' concerns around the impact of whales and, IMO, seems to benefit the day-1's and whales the most. With that said, I'm a fan of the idea of scaled rewards based on length of time staked, similar to Alchemist's Aludel subscription. Not only does it significantly incentivize (3,3), it also gives ohmies new to the protocol who are in the red given recent price movements, a better chance to recover, and provides for a pseudo-locking mechanism for those who were supporters of the concept of locked OHM. Scaled rewards is clearly another beast of its own, and would require significant manpower to devise different tiers, but is an avenue worth exploring.