- Edited
I cannot get behind the proposal because it is only a short term lengthening of the runway until the framework does the real deed - it does not cure the problem. We have exponential growth at the extreme of the S-OHM reward rate. After 6 months in the staked OHM protocol the reward rate begins a steep escalation process, which "this is what we all came for "the greed aspect" however the S-OHM reward rate starts to get unstable.
As an example using the Olympus DAO Calculator I used the following variables: OHM staked 60, OHM price $283 Rebase rate .3058% (the proposal framework new high rate)
- At the 5 month period the OHM is approx = 177.07
- Month 6 it is = 252.04
- month 7 = 350.73
- month 8 = 480.64.
I can keep going but you can do this yourself with the calculator. As the growth rate of the production of reward S-OHM continues to accelerate so to will inflation (the problem this proposal is suppose to solve). Anyone can pull up the Brian Calc and do the math. As I mentioned earlier we are solving the wrong problem. The issue isnt at the narrow end of OHM, (the small OHMIES) The inflation is at the broader end (higher end).
We cannot quantify this to a rich vs poor ohmie argument because that wont solve the problem. We need to propose lower rates of reward inflation based on the individual quantity of "S-OHM" because using the very rates proposed in this proposal you see the acceleration of award rates is not solved. It takes the lower OHMies longer to get to 2x however the OHMies already sitting over 177 ohm will simply elongate the problem until the framework makes even more drastic cuts that again will only affect the smaller ohmies. Eventually it wont make any sense at all for a new ohmie to join the protocol.
Will price increase? Perhaps but whats the floor? If the floor is the RFV of $26 and an OMHIE invests today and the more drastic framework cuts come into affect then when will that OHMie be whole again? How long will it take that Ohmie to grow his ohm to get whole? We need to adopt a curving of the S-OHM reward rate after an OHMie reaches a certain staking quantity and we can do so on all bands:
Band 1: 0 - 30 (S)OHM reward rate .45%
Band 2: 31 - 60 (S)OHM reward rate .35%
Band 3 : 61 - 90 (S)OHM reward rate .29%
Band 4: 91 - 120 (S)OHM reward rate .20%
Band 5: 121 and above reward rate .15%
Just an example not finite ranges, but this will decrease the inflation at the mid/higher end of the spectrum "where the inflation ACTUALLY happens. And yes I have read the arguments that this wont prevent people from using multiple addresses. And I say "that's not the problem this proposal is being asked to solve, we are trying to solve inflation at the moment, so lets solve inflation and then solve the duplicate wallet problem. But, this proposal "does not" solve inflation it only extends the runway for the OHMies with over 100+ OHM, the smaller ohmies will never reach their goal because the framework rates will have kicked in before they have an opportunity to 3 or 4X.