nakamomo6 I have to question the choice of only using two weeks to lower the current rate, that seems very fast
shadow Along with this, with lower reward rates, bonds become more efficient and integrations also become easier.
How do "integrations" become easier? This has not been explained.
Ananth Those who joined in March or pre-IDO have had the dual benefit of acquiring OHM at low price $4 per OHM and high APY ($100k+ for 3+ months). This has enabled the early adopters to grow their stash of OHMs. However, the newbies who have just started would be hit the most. I've a feeling that the reward rate reduction is happening too fast and could turn away several new OHMies.
I agree. I am one of those new "OHMies" with ~ 80 OHM stash. Nowhere was I told that the reward rate will be cut so drastically in 2 weeks! Maybe you should start putting out a big red banner on the websites that states "rewards will be cut to as low as 1000% if OIP-18 passes, please check it out for clarity".
This proposal feels like the people that got in first want to cash out, hence they want a higher value per $OHM.
Endeavor Taking a look at the numbers, about 45% of OHM holders joined Olympus in the past month alone (Jul12-Aug12). Given the recent and sudden price drops, how can a majority of these holders NOT be in the red? Reducing the rate is going to have such a negative user experience for such a large portion of our user base who would have to wait even longer to simply break even and get out. Imagine the effect on the protocol as these users tell their friends about this experience.
THIS, so much this. All of the twitter threads and PR for OHM has been "you're ok if you 3,3". Well, if reward rates go down, how many will still "3,3", or will do so just until they can break even and get out, never to return?
Endeavor I'm struggling to understand (1) the exact problem we're solving with this proposal, and (2) why do we need these changes now? All messaging thus far has been, "We're in a supply expansion phase", and Olympus continues to show MASSIVE growth month after month with incredible results in areas like: bond revenue, number of ohm wallets, runway, etc.
Indeed, like I mentioned above, this seems to me like a cash grab and nothing to do with OHM's long term vision. It's also terrible PR, as the community has been sold a fake strategy by the various promoters, only to see the rug pulled from under them.
Endeavor As a user, my safety net against worst cases like bank runs, whales dumping price, etc - is the fact that the APY is high and will make up for and overcome the losses "eventually". Without adding a mechanism to reduce volatility, my safety net VERY QUICK (2 weeks!) becomes significantly weaker and motivates me to actually hold less OHM in order to diversity the risk a bit more.
This user keeps making sense.
silent_mastodon 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?
Once again, we need to know the rationale, if one exists at all. With no further explanation, this reduction (1 month before the previous reduction none-the-less) is very… "suspicious". And before you make an argument that people were fine going from 100k% to 40k%, that's a hell of a lot different than going from ~17k% (current) to ~10k% or even 1k% (since it's a range).
Mark11 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)
There's no guarantee we're going to be at 10k% instead of, say, 1k%.
Yannis 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.
Good thing I'm not the only one with 2 brain cells.
abuya 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.
Indeed, bad PR all around. We need to introduce people to this in a calm, not sudden way. The messaging needs to change.
Irv86 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
Once again, people see through things
kevthepeg 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.
acgrizzle 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.
Yet another reasonable voice.
Systemic_Whisk One of the reasons that RFV is growing slowly is because the policy team proposed targeting liquidity growth. A slowdown in RFV growth was an expected outcome of that change in focus. IMO a rebalance towards growing RFV should be at least tried before a reward rate reduction.
In summary, it seems that:
- Most people see this change as being waaaay too fast. Besides, we should give new people (like myself - yes, I know I'm biased, but still) the heads-up that the APY will change drastically in the coming week(s). The fact that "you've talked about it for months" does not excuse blindsiding people. Not everyone has time to dick around on discord. We should clearly state that APY reduction is happening and to make a decision based on that.
- A good part (~ 50%) of people that joined the OHM community are, at this time, in RED. Nobody is panicking though knowing that
3,3 will win the day over weak hands. Lowering this to potentially 1k% will not please anyone IMHO. This smells like the firsts that accumulated OHM (the initial 50%) is trying to cash out at the expense of the last 50% that just came in the last month.
- Not enough explanation has been given as to HOW this will improve integrations or the long term viability of the project. Also, no alternatives have been provided (like, for example, focus less on liquidity and do more to incentivize RFV), which could solve for the same problem.
- Why so little notice? Considering current supply is between 1M and 10M, we would immediately go into reduction mode with no smoothening.
- Why is this proposal not split into two separate votes? This just muddies the water.
Now, do I want to OHM to succeed? Of course! I wouldn't have invested otherwise. I realize 17k% APY is not sustainable, but when all your PR is in the APY and then you try to pull the rug without even warning people before so they can make an informed decision, that leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Note that I am NOT against reducing APY to 10k% and trying to improve RFV, all I'm saying is that the way you're going about this is totally backwards IMHO.