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.
OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction
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.
- Edited
shadow OK, i'm not sure this was clarified in the original unedited post
shadow the first change will be a reward rate reduction to 0.2975%, from a current 0.35% of total supply
THAT is reasonable
am unsure what is was at first but the framework quotes a different rate "0.1587-0.3058" which is which? and for how long based upon number of stakers not withstanding-yes DAO is dynamic as it protocol...so many unknowns
again would like to see what the "TIME" scale is on your graph?
a practical example of what "0.2975"% is?
The whole thesis around the olympus dao economy is socialism. We all trust each other (3,3) rise together and benefit at the end of the day. If we lower the apy to the levels being suggested this early, the economy turns into capitalism very quickly, shunting the poor and feeding the rich who cash out.
By all means lower the apy, but do it to the level that the rich get taxed more than the poor
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
- Edited
Irv86 That's almost word for word what they said back then too.
Larger bags are also earning more at the current rate that they could dump on you, so I don't understand the complaint this time around either.
If you hold, and the protocol remains healthy (i.e. the intent of this proposal), you'll come out ahead. Don't worry about people having more than you. I guarantee you'll have people saying the same thing about you when it comes time to decrease again.
I was down probably 50% when I voted yes for the last decrease. You either trust that you'll come out ahead or you don't, I guess.
- Edited
I think the proposal does a good job of arguing for why we should consider implementing a framework for future reward rate reductions.
I do not think it provides clear justification for why a reward rate reduction should happen simultaneously to adopting a framework, or why a reward rate reduction is necessary now. It appears that most of the people voting 'AGAINST' are basing their position on a desire to preserve the current reward rate.
Why not decouple these two?
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.
- Edited
yup, this will reduce reward yield/rebase to 0.42% assuming everything else is constant
0.35%-> 0.2975% reward rate
0.4758% -> 0.42% reward yield ->>10,000apy
should include in original proposal as example for better optics
My vote goes from Against to (1)
I would still not have it as a valid point if other projects don't like the high apy. Let them stake their ohm and buy back their token at market price with the rewards - where is the issue? ^^
And I would love if the OHMIES get optional SIGNAL-POWER to buy up to 10 erc 20 contracts per rebase with 10% of rewards + matched amount of DAO (or any calculation of % that makes sense for this) and giving longer-staking OHMIES discounts for those purchases depending on how many OHMIES have done -3,-3 in the same time.
but perhaps that's for another proposal thanks to Hades (BB, ZG) and @abipup for being so patient with me ^^
shadow I think there should be more voting options. "Adopt framework for release in 3 months and don't reduce reward rate now"
Actually the two options could and possibly should have completely separate voting books
Hugely positive on this policy framework and forward guidance. If there is one thing we've learnt from tradfi and the FED it is that market participants love to have their expectations managed, AND IMPORTANTLY forward guidance can influence actual outcomes.
I think this will further help to dispel the FUD that the high reward APYs can't last forever - ohmies that have taken the time to research the protocol know that, and always knew there would be a tapering of this nature as we transitioned from growth to stability.
(3, 3)
After creating and running a successful business for over 50 years I developed a saying... "if in doubt throw it out". Some very valid and constructive concerns have been raised here and need to be considered. It is only a month or so ago when the APY was reduced to the current levels. If we adopt this policy I fear it will send out a msg that we are either out of control or we are in panic mode.