GrimCheetah

MrMochi If we run out our runway (the pantry) it may cause more panic as people may feel we don't have enough food left to take care of all the Ohm. They might question and lose trust in Olympus being able to provide for the stakers.

This is fair and valid and I don't necessarily disagree. But thus far the team has had good control over the levers that cause runway to increase or decrease and I wonder if the team feels confident enough with those controls to plan out an explicit countdown event for the runway. For instance say we maintain the current rewards emissions until runway is down to 100 days or even 200 days instead of doing so now. Is something like that feasible? If so it could bolster community confidence knowing it was all planned despite having to watch the runway number go down. I personally would feel more confident than I already do (and that's saying something!) knowing that the team thought they had enough control to accomplish something like this.

Then again I guess the framework for emissions reductions is that countdown event but maybe just more abstract than having a hard line number like the runway countdown event I suggested? Just thinking out loud

shadow In general I am for this proposal and will most likely vote for it but I have a concern/question that nags at me a bit in the back of my mind. It feels a little bit disingenuous for the protocol to push the idea of runway length being important and a reason to invest in OHM (I believe these to be true) but then never reach the number of days that the runway shows before reducing emissions. When the last reduction occurred and the runway began to balloon to over a year the thought process for me goes to "awesome, we can have over a year at this rate of emissions…" but that hasn't really been true about the runway. There doesn't seem to be as much of a correlation between runway length and emission reduction as one would assume. So I ask why tout runway when it is misleading to investors because you never actually use the whole runway? This next reduction will extend runway to 700 days but based on history of emissions reductions there is no intention of actually making it to 700 days from today even at the new reduction rate. So in let's say 250 days from now we have another proposal to reduce emissions again and that extends runway to 1500 days, well okay, but what about the rest of those 700 days we thought we had at the previous emissions because of the runway?

Also, is 2m in bond revenue/day not sustainable? If not, what is the sustainable number the team has in their collective minds?

I am all for this adjustment and understand the need but is there an acknowledgement from the team that runway should not be used as an expectation of future rewards at current emissions?