CosmicRadii

I don't mind this considering the condition of the crypto market. But I am a bit concerned, if we're having to go to the extreme end of the reward rate drop for the supply range already, and we're not even 30% of the way to the next range. That means we will either be stuck with this reward rate for a long time, or what I suspect to be more likely, it will have to be reduced again before we hit the next supply milestone. Breaking the APY structure and potentially damaging confidence in the project. I understand even if that is the best way to go forward, but I do think if the policy team suspects there is potential for that being the likely outcome at some point soon enough, it should be communicated as early as possible.

nightmare Do you mean these new bonds under this model? I'm not sure bonding makes much sense for me, I considered it at first, but interacting with contracts on the ETH network is just way too costly for a small investor like myself, so I've kept network usage to the absolute minimum. So I kind of hope bonding does not become the new 3, 3 in the future. Though I suppose I could try to move over to another chain with my gOHM, I'd imagine that in itself would be costly. But I'm elaborating beyond the scope of the main topic there, so I'll stop. I'm just wondering how this would play out for us smaller investors who bonding never made much sense for.

How would this new model effect staking? Would it still even exist? Speaking as someone who has only ever 3,3.

It seems reasonable to lower the reward rate I suppose, there are definitely good reasons to do so. But isn't the total supply under 7 million still? Dropping to the absolute minimum for the 1 to 10 million range may be jumping ahead a bit? I think dropping to 2000/3000% APY range would make more sense till we get closer to the 10 million mark? Seems like a reasonable drop from the 7000/6000% we've been at for a while now, but I'm no authority on how these things work, so maybe I'm missing something, or just have the wrong idea how to manage this.

At this point I kind of feel the first GSR proposal is the one I would go for. Of course there are advantages and challenges with both, but I wouldn't be apposed to both as one as the two can be afforded and properly managed.

Rochambeau I think this is a fair point. While I agree that we should try and get an early start on our terms for MMs/CEXs, and the two proposals we've gotten seem to show respect for how we want to run things. I do also agree that we should make sure we are getting the best deal possible before agreeing to anything, especially taking into account that we don't know how different the market conditions could be by the time the terms are up.