billygoat33

shadow

1. I am saying their is a disproportionate amount of selling happening amongst large holders of OHM and have continually asked for anyone to prove me wrong with hard data.
2. You are making an assumption as to my demographic within the distribution.
3. I did not have "the same opportunity" as you - nor does anyone that comes to the project after inception; however, I did find my way here and have been invested.
4. I sincerely hope you think "small" Ohmies can bring as much or more value to this project than "big" Ohmies as your response reads otherwise. Your work on Dune, answers in chat, and overall dedication to this project was one of the original attractions for me because this is a very different community. Please don't insinuate that someone with the smallest amount of OHM can't be as valuable or a bigger believer in the project than someone with the most - though you are welcome to your opinion if that is your belief.
5. @abipup I understand hyper-inflation affects all holders the same, sorry if my posts seem otherwise.
6. Yes, I also understand you can't tax the rich as they will adjust their strategy. If no one ever presents dissenting opinions or alternate solutions the road often leads nowhere.
7. Yes, I am keenly aware that not all of the community are single real persons. Losing Arondight and others definitely does not help market price stability. Speaking of which has policy though about deepening the pools, though that's an exit balance dance as well.
8. What I really wanted was a discussion about the income side of the equation which was barely addressed on the community call. At the start it was mentioned @abipup had analytics to share about the current situation - that never happened. Inflation must be reduced - no argument, we are discussing best methods - and must be equally applied throughout the distribution. I would still love to see data that shows correlation of "reducing rates is bullish" versus potential environmental meta correlation. Anyhow, inflation adjustments are just prolonging a slow death without increase of revenue. It seems the policy has lots of ongoing projects to address this issue, but should consider being more forth coming. Not everyone is on the policy team, nor can most spend their day in Discord, but an ever increasing number of people, from all walks of life, are finding Olympus - they need to be encouraged to stay and not all will be okay with "well the jigga brains said so".

dns The framework is designed to actually solve the problem but it is imbalanced because the combination of bond purchases and S-OHM higher quantity holders will absorb roughly 71% of the minted supply emissions as the framework is aggressively addressing emissions. Your asking a new ohmie to hold and 3,3 meanwhile the S-OHM on the broader end continues to inflate away that ohmies value in his say "one ohm" so he is fighting a resistance battle against inflated supply and sell pressure in which that 1 ohm OHMIE doesnt win. And the OHMIE can't win because we slowed his initial growth trajectory.

Here's the math from my earlier post for people to understand - you can download the CSV from the contract and verify for yourself: https://etherscan.io/token/0x04f2694c8fcee23e8fd0dfea1d4f5bb8c352111f#balances (don't forget to remove the first three addresses as those are Olympus contracts) I'm using values from my post yesterday, so they have likely change slightly. Feel free to verify my math and prove it materially wrong.

I am applying demographic labels not to create "us vs. them" or "poor vs. rich", but rather to illustrate there's an imbalance that must be addressed or nothing changes. The founders did an amazing job and thought of many situations - this one was hard to predict, but it's our current state of affairs.

Top 5% of sOHM holders control 71% of sOHM

That's 500 addresses with a simple average of 827 sOHM per address.

The bottom 95% of sOHM holders control 29% of sOHM

The remaining 9,750 addresses have a simple average of 17 sOHM per address.

Therefore, a top 500 address, on average, controls 48X more sOHM than the bottom 95% of sOHM holders.

Something has to be done - fully agree.

However, as @shadow 's proposal only kicks the proverbial can slightly down the road as distribution imbalance above remains in the same proportion. The top 5% have the largest amount of sOHM and therefore receive 48X more emissions vs. your average Ohmie - reducing the emission rate effectively does nothing.

What I would like to understand is where is the majority of the selling pressure originating - from the top 5% of addresses or the bottom 95%? Or present a full cohort analysis as that might reveal some other issue not yet illuminated.

There's is also an optics problem as @Fulano brings up - most recent Ohmie's came here because of the meme APY and if still around will likely run if that disappears further compounding inflation imbalance issues. I think there's merit to @plutus suggestion to programmatically reducing emissions on a set schedule, well communicated, and understood by the community.

However, without addressing the emissions imbalance our problem remains, unless someone can show me that the bottom 95% of addresses originate the majority of the sell pressure.

Regarding someone gaming the system via multiple wallets - who gives a sh*t?

Can you present math showing that will negate an attempt to invert the emissions imbalance?

There is and always will be some "bad actors", but with all the gigabrains we have in this community we can combat this issue? Let's get help from Chainalysis or we can roll our own, it really isn't that hard to detect multiple wallets. Fraud detection has been running in TradeFi land for years. We aren't going to stop every instance, but you can make it difficult enough that most won't bother. If we don't want to change emission rate per quantity of sOHM, than we need to provide some other alternative for those Ohmies. A different token, product, something so they can continue to enjoy Olympus without jeopardizing the protocol's longevity. As stated earlier if someone has the data or skills to analyze and bracket the origination of most selling is not within the top 5% of holders - great, but that means we still have a different problem versus lowering the emission rate.

Again, I agree something needs to be done, but there's a proportion imbalance that must be addressed or nothing changes - those with the most continue to get the most OHM regardless of emission rate if equal rate for all. And as @shaydinblue points out this also creates a voting imbalance because Olympus votes by percentage ownership.

The founders did an amazing job and thought of many situations - this one was hard to predict, but it's our current state of affairs. Let's come together as a community and figure out how to fix things.

Mark11 many large holders haven't sold a single OHM

Well, many large holders have sold large amounts of OHM, shall we put together the math to compare?

Adjusting down the rate doesn't really do anything - unless acquisition/usage becomes exponential to match the rate.

Otherwise, the top heavy still get proportionally much more than the other 95% and the selling pressure doesn't change. The quantity they are selling might go down, but proportionally it will remain the same.

Revenue will remain linear in growth while supply (and subsequent selling) remains exponential.

This is fundamentally a lack of utility problem of OHM leading to an acquisition problem compounded by a disproportionate distribution.

This proposal doesn't actually solve the inflation issue, perhaps slows it a bit, and doesn't address in any detail the lack of utility and acquisition side of the problem.

Edit: @Mark11

Just saw your response above and seems we are in agreement regarding increasing utility (attractiveness) of OHM beyond meme APY spread throughout crypto twatter.

SuperMaru

Your comment could easily be construed as "Please lower the price so I can buy more despite the goal of the protocol for widespread adoption and use."

The party ends without continued acquisition of new OHMies.

The issue of inflation, compounded by top heavy distribution, is not caused by weak hands. In fact, the small Ohmies holding strong are the ones most punished by heavy selling.

According to the staking contract: https://etherscan.io/token/0x04f2694c8fcee23e8fd0dfea1d4f5bb8c352111f#balances

As of this writing, and removing the top 3 addresses as they are contracts, there are 9,750 sOHM holders that are currently staking 575,271 OHM

The top 500 addresses (top 5%) hold 413,661 sOHM or 71.9% which averages to 827 sOHM per staker

The remaining 95% of OHMies, the bottom 9,250 addresses, hold the remaining 29.1% (161,610) which averages to 17 sOHM per staker.

What's your guess on whether the majority of sell pressure is from the 5% of holders that control over 70% of sOHM or the 95% that are trying to believe in (3,3)?

Another lens - at the current rebase yield of 0.4793% - anyone in the top 5% that holds on average 827 sOHM gets 3.96 OHM per rebase or approximately 11.89 OHM/day or 70% of the average 17 OHM held by the other 95% of holders.

In other demographic news, the top 100 addresses (the 1%) hold 258,649 sOHM or 45% of the staked supply.

Mark11

An issue, not unique to OHM, is whales/earlies having accumulated so much OHM that their daily selling of rewards outstrips current onboarding/buying of OHM.

Does this proposal offer any guidance on how a lower APY will be a greater acquisition tactic or increase buying demand to offset massive selling pressure by early adopters trying to realize free profit?

In a way, this race down to RFV/OHM value creates ever longer time hand-cuffs on new OHMies to 3,3 to just break-even. Please see @dns math below that better illustrates the issue at the top vs. bottom of the OHM community.

There is absolutely a world as @DefiCryptoBorg points out where this protocol doesn't survive long enough for a late entrant to break-even.

I think there does not to be a framework put in place, but this doesn't seem well hashed out and therefore I'm voting against at this time. Will now dive into the Discord discussions to see if that sways my opinion.