silent_mastodon

I also think 33% is too much. 18%-25% I think is a better range.

Pasta
If this is about reducing sell pressure, I'm actually more against it than before.
I think DeFi users are overly concerned with sellers. People are going to sell no matter what.

What matters more is retaining the desirability of the token. If this proposal makes some integration easier (as mentioned) it would be great to be more concrete about why that is true. What actual integration(s) are we talking about, and how does OHM fit in? Why is an OHM with this emissions schedule better than an OHM with the current set up, in that context?

I hold very little OHM, because I didn't have any more dry powder when I learned about it just a couple of weeks ago. So my vote isn't going to matter much either way. That said, I'd feel better if I could see something more concrete about how this change improves desirability.

I'm confused by the proposal, because it seems to be talking about several things, and I guess I'm too smoothbrain to figure out why they relate to each other.

If the goal is to reduce volatility, I feel like this isn't needed. The protocol already did the smartest thing I've seen in DeFi in this regard, which was to control essentially the entirety of the liquidity, and thus benefit from fees during times of market flux. I don't see how this proposal helps really, or that it's required from the perspective of revenue.

If the goal is just to have a 'scheduled' decrease in emissions based on the supply, and that's all, I don't have any particular argument against it, other than the one already made by others about the very newest Ohmies being the ones to eat the biggest part of the shit sandwich.

There isn't a 'best' time to do this type of change, so being super clear why this is a net gain for (3, 3)ers is very very important.