rotorless

kschan Thank you for setting this out. It is helpful. But changing the product is not the resolution to decreasing participation. Changing a product dilutes strength and credibility of the product and is more likely than less likely to alienate existing participants.

The presumption as to why participants leave the market is a huge presumption. Nobody knows what other people are thinking and also since the high APY is ever present, it is less likely that participants leave because of the presumption. Then there are macro effects of the price of Bitcoin which is proven to correlate to drawdowns across crypto, Eth gas fees are high, so the timing of the observation matters somewhat. The best solutions are more likely to be simple and uncontroversial.

There is a maxim in capital markets that teaches that capital will seek the highest yield, another truism is people are motivated by incentive. If the OHM incentive is already high, but participation is low or decreasing, the simplest inference is not enough non-participants know about OHM, or they pass over OHM after discovering it. Get in front of these issues and participation will more likely go straight up.

Some common reasons to pass over high yield opportunities include thinking it is a scam and not being able to understand what the opportunity is. For example, the custom and practice of the trade of how most investors do a quick check for a scam is all over YouTube. OHM can definitely fall within that quick check. To get in front of the items on the scam checklist would resolve this ie likes on CoinGecko, Twitter action etc. - because this is the custom and the practice that is adopted by the mainstream.

Before one gets to that point, the opportunity has to be discoverable and onboarding has to be easy. The OHM opportunity is obscure and hard to find, and there is single access point (exchange) and gas fees are high.

Reprograming and changing the protocol will not overcome these issues, and I am sure there are a few more. If we have the conviction the protocol is technically solid to achieve its aim, then the answer is less likely to change the product and more likely to focus on the issues that are ever present.

So we might ask the question what are the barriers we control that prevent new participants from onboarding? instead trying to pretend to know and guess why 1000's of individuals decide why they need when they need capital.

Just some thoughts this morning. Best.