bluesinsoul

Graz Thanks for the explanation. Yeah I agree if you can somehow auction off your locked position it could be beneficial for both sides of the trade.

I am for this proposal. In my opinion this change needs to happen ASAP. Without locked staking we can't lower rebase rate significantly without hurting users, without lower APY we can't implement utility for OHM, without utility there will be no demand and without demand price will keep dropping.

I've read through the arguments against it. Here's my take.

• Concerns about timing: I don't think there will be a "perfect" timing for the change. Crypto is volatile and you can't predict what's going to happen next. We should instead focus on our own protocol. This change needs to happen sooner than later.

• Concerns about driving away new users: We want users who are in for long term. If this change discourages people who plan to profit on short term runs, it's fine.

• Concerns about complexity: Well, first of all it's not that complicated. If you want the highest reward, pick the longest term that available. If you want mobility, don't lock up. Also, complexity is not good or bad. What really matters is the functionality.

• Alchemist model vs Locked Staking model: It's a valid argument to maintain flexibility for users. I'm not an active user of Alchemist so correct me if I'm wrong, OHM staking offers a much much higher reward rate compared to Alchemist. In order to enjoy such high return, the trade off is to sacrifice mobility. I think it's perfectly reasonable. At the end of the day, protocol functionality dictates what behavior is encouraged.

In my opinion we should focus on what initial terms should be offered and what reward rate should be given. I'm guessing the distribution of terms taken will be quite polarized. I'd like to see more discussion about the math behind.

You can't introduce functionality without complexity imo. We can stay in the simplest form, in return we don't have use case.

Graz This system would start with base rewards for everyone and then gradually increase rewards multiplier. Since we are currently at a very high APY, this may introduce a shock to the current system. Not saying its a bad thing, but it would be quite an event.

I'm for wOHM, as it is a necessary step forward to bring use case for OHM into the defi world.

I'm also for new staking contract to combat against abusing the rebase timing.

For wOHM in fuse pool, I don't have a clear opinion but here's my take:

What attracts me to OHM is the powerful game theoretic cooperation in 3,3.

This is a quote from Zeus's medium post comparing OHM vs ESD.

Olympus sells new supply itself, ensuring that the profits from market operations are shared by all stakers, regardless of their sophistication or market activity.

I think as a protocol we should make sure there's no dominating strategy vs 3,3 because it defeats everything if there's a superior strategy existing over 3,3, sophiscated or not. From the sound of it, put wOHM in fuse pool and borrow against it will be a better off strategy than 3,3. Maybe it will be better if 3,3 staker can share the profit generating from wOHM in fuse pool by some mechanism.