Irv86 people said the same thing when APY went from 100k to 15k. It worked out fine for everyone involved.
OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction
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.
This feels like whales are trying to raise the ladder up behind them. This needs to be discussed for a longer length of time and implemented months from now to give people time to reevaluate their position.
acgrizzle not a whale but u need to better understand how the protocol works; i.e this changes the reward yield from .4757/rebase to .42/rebase a diff of ~.0557 and reduces apy to roughly 10K %, some of the reasons are , a) increase runway b) reduce emisions and c) RFV will be able to catch up with supply more efficiently.
- Edited
I like this proposal because our supply growth is exponential whereas our revenue growth is linear (so far ie)
Worth noting that Backing / OHM or RFV/OHM declined from $29.4 to $29.02 in the last 4 days. We’ve had slow bond sale days before but fact is now we’ve just got a much bigger supply base.
To Ohmies who are worried whether this means lower returns I will say this:
APY is just one element, the other one is Backing per OHM. All else equal, backing per OHM should rise faster with this change.
More importantly, curtailing rewards rate will be akin to a halving event of sorts. This will reduce sell pressure and as pointed out in the proposal, help us take on more $s for every $OHM sold.
Thank you Shadow and Abipup for your continued leadership in the policy team. Proposing a systematic change to OHM monetary policy is hard. This is a really great first step towards ensuring sustainable INCOOOOOM for the Ohmies.
shadow can u provide some clarity on wen the 1000% would be the effective rate based on framework i.e what parameters are we looking at to decrease to that rate over what time frame and why, should be fleshed out a bit... as we saw, when we decreased to the purported 20K from 40K it actually went to 15K, now 17K so some sort of rate gauge would be helpful running in the UI/X, so many levers and layers of complexity...it's all math ikr
and again what are the TIME values on your framework?
- Edited
I encourage everyone to review OIP-11 forum discussion. Some common concerns people shared back then:
- "People will unstake and sell" -> we actually saw an increase in % OHM staked after that previous change went into effect. We also did not see downward price movement afterwards. And the reward rate decrease last time was larger than the one currently proposed.
- "Not fair to new ohmies, delay the changes for 2-3 months" -> what about the new ohmies that come in 2-3 months? They will also say the same thing when the time would come to decrease reward rate. The fact of the matter is that we have to be proactive to protect the health of the protocol.
- "We need more advance notice" -> we've discussed for a long time now how reward rate is not meant to be static; this should not come as a surprise in the first place. Further, the policy group put up this proposal as soon as we were prepared to. If we keep the forum discussion for 1 week, add 1 week for a snapshot vote, and then 2 weeks for linear decay from current reward rate to the new rate, that's 1 month between now and the new APY. That's a lot of notice.
I'll address some specific comments in a few, but knowing our past history with reward rate reductions is important.
https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/37-oip-11-reducing-reward-rate