allornone

  • Feb 22, 2022
  • Joined Aug 13, 2021
  • Honestly I’m not sure what to think about this proposal. Sounds like a great opportunity if the right conditions are there but also risky since we will most likely be bringing in a pretty tired and angry community that would dump whatever coins they get to recoup their losses. Past experience with a protocol changing hands has been pretty bad. Would like to see an example project and how this would exactly break down to get a better understanding.

    • 100% support this! Sushi was extremely close to being bought by wonderland a few weeks back and their team seems a bit shaky these days. An ohm centric amm would be amazing but maybe think about adjusting the kitchen fees to no more than 3.3%?

    • From what I’ve read and the on chain evidence it looks like these guys are already solid partners of Olympus. I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t further support this.

    • I’m all for the reduction but would rather rip off the bandaid and accelerate this over two weeks instead of four. The last two week reduction seemed like and eternity.

      • This proposal fails to explain to me why we will fail if the APY stays the same. There are concerns but nothing concrete. Am I wrong to assume the APY goes down as more people join and stake? If that is the case shouldn’t we focus on bringing more people in to reduce the APY instead of reducing the rate?

        • Mark11

          Mark11

          I want to feel comfortable with my (3,3) in the short and long term and 17k APY helps me with that much more than 7.5k. Whales will dump at every phase of the project no matter the APY. Why punish the small (and numerous) investors.

          • Mark11

            just because people are in the green on their investment doesn't mean they will dump rewards. Keeping the rate where it is for a while will allow people to feel comfortable in their investment and enjoy (3,3) instead of making it a necessary evil to get back to even.

          • The last rate reduction estimated an APY of 20K% and we ended up at 15K. That 25% miss gives me little confidence this next reduction would stay on the high end and fear it will have a irreversible negative impact on the sentiment of the community.

          • I feel like this proposal is coming too fast. We just got finishing implementing the last rate reduction and haven't even had time to see how this truly impacts the ecosystem. I'd prefer a longer waiting period (3-6 months) before any thing is changed again. This will allow us to study the impacts on the protocol and provide the proper time to gain consensus on a way forward. By all measurements to date we are healthy and thriving. Why fix something that isn't broken?

            Additionally, we are in the expansion phase and want to get as many OHM out into the public as possible, Reducing this effort is counterproductive to everything we have preached. In the grand scheme of things 10,000 wallets is nothing. Perhaps we look at a rate reduction when we hit a milestone such as 100,000 wallets or 1,000,000 wallets. That way people have a mark in the sand they can plan to and supports the growth narrative.

            Vote No on both for now……..need more time to evaluate