Kutu2

I think IF OHM's focus is no longer on getting and retaining new retail investors then this is ok (and corect me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that this is the case…the focus has shifted to getting new OHM partners rather than retail investors for growth)

But to be honest I would hold the APY as is if it were me. For the longest time we've talked about how "Price doesn't matter!" but now we are ALSO saying "APY doesn't matter!". It's a hard pill to swallow and I just think the messaging and TIMING for this reduction has to be carefully considered.

1. OHM forks are still gaining traction with higher APYs and arguably some with higher engagement.
2. The messaging for how OHM's use case is superior has NOT yet diffused to the masses and hasn't had time to soak in
3. OHM approved projects had not had the time to prove their worth (KLIMA, ROME)

with all that in mind, really to the average person the only thing they can definitively rely on when investing is the price and APY…

Its interesting reading the various takes on the matter and I guess my main take-away based on what I've read is that the OHM community isn't ready for this.

Here's what I think the problem with the proposal is:

1. Unclear Benefits to Olympus
   I think the problem here is how the proposal is written. A lot of fluff with the right buzzwords but I can't really decipher what the benefits are. IF there really aren't any tangible benefits or if the real goal is to give to charity, then I think that's ok too. The proposal just has to be honest about it. I think you would have had a better responses if you just took away the section about "Benefits to Olympus" and instead focus on how Github impacted Olympus (with some facts and examples and not fluff).

2. It's entering a space that is highly political
   This is sad to me because in the crypto space I want to believe we can put aside political biases, but sadly this is not the case, and for some people "climate change" is a trigger word. If github is a community of developers, then focus on developers. Pushing the charity down one political path is only going to divide the community. Maybe one day we as a community will be ready, but this is not that day.

3. Is it a charity or is it a partnership?
   This is probably rehashing point one a bit but really…is this a charity or is this partnership of some sort? Clarity in proposals like this is key.

Some people simply dont' want the protocol to give to charity, and if that is their stance then I think there is nothing you can do about it. Don't sugar coat your proposal with intagible benefits and just try again in the future. Maybe the community will be ready then.