Brian33 thanks for your feedback. I'm with you regarding the measures. My input to you and the team was more about how to communicate it. Instead of telling the community "everything is great but we reduce the APY" I suggest to be very transparent and clear on what the issues are and what issues we solve by reducing the APY directly in your proposal text.
As an example I like the explanation in OIP-19:
Our goal is to increase OHM’s supply over the long run, and through integrations and mass adoption become a decentralized reserve currency. However, we can’t just pump out supply and be done with it that way. Why?
Each OHM is backed by at least 1 unit of RFV, we can’t mint without that. The backing comes from our revenue generating activities, mainly bonds at the moment. When we sell bonds, we mint OHM against 1 unit of RFV and sell it at a discount compared to the market price. This indicates that our revenue depends on the market price.
So, if we were to just expand supply without taking this into consideration, we’d tank our market price, and thus our revenue. No revenue - no supply expansion and no reserve currency.
Here’s a simple example showing this.
Case A: OHM is trading at $500. We sell 20 OHM and earn $10,000.
Case B: OHM is trading at $250. We sell 20 OHM and earn $5,000.Said differently, in order to achieve the same revenue as in case A, we’d have to sell 40 OHM in case B, so we'd receive less revenue per OHM sold in case B, or have more emissions for the same revenue.
Because of this dynamic, the Policy team carefully balances two types of emissions - emissions from bonding and emissions from staking rewards. Staking reward emissions form the majority of our supply growth. Bonding emissions depend on the total supply, demand, and BCV values set by the Policy team.