• Proposals
  • KIP-9: Protocol Maturation and APY Alignment

ofcourse im against this, bad timing, should be in may

Brian33 I find it very frustrating that the team, especially Archimedes, speak in a condescending tone, and take no accountability in the slightest for the mayhem that takes place. If you present an idea you have as great, and only 3 months later you say, yeah it s not working, when earlier on you were vouching for it, you should come out and apologise. There is an absolute lack of moral integrity from the team. And the fact that the team is anonymous further aggravates that. They should come publicly and speak about it, we trusted a wrong model, we re changing.
The whole premise was the high apy and the carbon utility. To change that 3 months after, shows the team had no idea what they were doing and they, along with the IDO participants became rich at our expense.
Who decided that the first price at sushiswap would be 1980 USD? because on CG it s the first price it shows. The persons who decided on that price should know that it acts as anchoring and in essence, exploited us all.
Why should I, having bought in mid October as an early supporter, tolerate any changes, while there are still pKlima holders who can crash the price?
Fix the tokenomics first, make it easier for newcomers to enter in an easy way, fix the damn website and then let s stalk about changes. GRADUALLY over a period of months.
Voting NO to both

Brian33

Brian33 I get your frustrations, I really do. Before I proceed on, the majority of the DAO and their leads were not here for the IDO, including most of policy. This KIP is equally aimed to all participants, and to remain sustainable as we head towards the long term goals.

So what this means is that none of the IDO participants are involved in the governance or administration of the DAO yet they sit with their bags of 10 DAI KLIMA with no demonstrated interest in the running of the DAO just ready to dump when it suits their personal desires. That is probably more dangerous to the ongoing success of the protocol than anything else.
Was there no withholding period for them to be able dump/ sell?

Brian33 I respect all you guys. Without everyone here, we couldn't have gotten to where KlimaDAO is today.

Exactly so please consider our views although coming from a different perspective than the super early investors but still very important to us and our own personal situations.
Just like the planet we have to survive as well.

Brian33 We have posted KIP-3, which shows the framework that we have accepted. This KIP is within the range of that. Additionally, in many office hours and in my informal policy chats, I've been discussing about APY reductions, and we've been shooting for ~ 2 million for the reduction. If this proposal goes through, we will hit that mark if it is voted for. The reduction seems large, but it's because it is projected for a year. The effect is much lower when you look through it at a lower time frame.

So you say this fits within the KIP-3 framework and I guess that is true but very misleading in the way it is laid out in the KIP-3 reward rate infographic. From an average crypto investors viewpoint it would certainly not be unreasonable to believe that the reduction of the APR spread over the specified amounts of KLIMA released be in a linear fashion ESPECIALLY in the absence of any specific indication that the inbuilt design intention was to have the APR literally fall off a cliff and then when we are only less than 2 million KLIMA at that.
That is definitely not TRANSPARENT for investors to consider and make their own judgements and decisions on. Why was this intention not fully disclosed in a timely manner to the wider audience of potential investors or it is a knee jerk reaction to the diabolical situation that the governance division has unfortunately created in less than 3 months.
As it would have been so easy to publish the intention in the infographic of the timing to implement this “off the cliff” adjustment instead of presenting it in the opaque way it was done I am only left to speculate and ask WHY?

Brian33 We could do a slower reduction over months, but with the compounding nature of the protocol, we will reach the 10m supply much faster, with an even lower APY.

Then publish this information instead of keeping it to yourselves. Why is it not included in and forming part of the Proposal above so that we all have the same information as you do to make our decisions.

Once again I say I am in support of reducing the APR but only in a structured linear fashion to minimise disruption and lessen the negative affect on potential and current investors but not this desperate economic ambush!
Unless there is something we don’t yet know about???

If this goes to a snapshot vote where can I see the rules that govern how this is conducted ie are they weighted votes depending on amount of KLIMA held or is it by simple wallet count or other? What majority is required to be reached to be successful etc?

    AussieWayne

    https://klimadao.medium.com/pklima-aligning-incentives-for-long-term-success-6bf78981d1a
    You can read the information about vesting for pKlima published in the documentation since way ahead of launch above.

    You can use these dashboards to track their doings and goings (most not doing much for the last month it seems)
    https://dune.xyz/tianqi/pklima-data
    https://dune.xyz/Brian33/pKLIMA-vs-IDO-peeps

    Again posting a link to the informal Policy AMA where this was discussed for the most part, (It was touched on in earlier Policy AMAs too though I think). This is from a week back and everyone was invited, I can attest to us mods trying to do our best to drum up interest among engaged holders to come and listen and share their opinion:

    https://www.notion.so/klima-dao/Informal-Policy-Chat-12-January-b3b437b3ef7c4890a3d059f690784155
    https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/841609815817060393/930890734087856229/KLIMA_PolicyTalkJan12th2022.mp3

      Kronborg33
      Me too, but no so much and so fast, in few months if they want to reduce again, whatvit will be, less than a 1000%

      We should not reduce so drasticlly, nobody will buy klima

      Mike_Fast Is the supply share for pklima investors calculated from circulating klima supply meaning all tokens not staked? Or is it calculated from total supply of all klima including staked and not staked tokens which are in free circulation?

      Brian33 “The reduction seems large, but it's because it is projected for a year.”

      Am I understanding this to mean that the proposed reward rate will hold for one year? Can we hold you to it?

        This DAO has been horribly mismanaged since the beginning, with psychological actions to keep people from selling like misleading infographics, distracting "news" stories and a slow eroding of the price which has done nothing but enrich the "Klima treasury". Unknown (9,9)ers and sophisticated traders have found suspicious ways to maximize profits off the back of Klima and it is not acknowledged or thoroughly investigated, which makes it look like Klima is condoning the behavior. The "bear" market can not explain the systematic way the Klima token price has been demolished via BCT manipulation and only people with true knowledge of carbon markets and the tokenomics of BCT are able to pull this off, which makes it more suspicious.

        Their answer is to throw the APY off of a cliff to 8000% as if to tell the public that it is the APY's fault, so they must punish the Klima investors. These actions would not look good to any real investor, regulatory body, or any official government who would want to partner Carbon credits, with this blockchain technology.
        So yes, lets fix the APY and ignore the gross manipulation of Klima that has been tolerated by the team.

          Mike_Fast you mention the 480mil on Dune, but why are the rest omitted?
          Team: 330m pKLIMA, and 7.8% supply share
          Project Stakeholders: 70m pKLIMA, and 3.5% supply share
          Advisors: 50m pKLIMA, and 1% supply share
          OlympusDAO: 70m pKLIMA, and 3.5% supply share

          obsidianpassion Completely untrue to the point of being malicious towards the KlimaDAO team and investors. The team cannot manipulate the markets and their actions or opinions cannot change the market sentiment. It's pretty obvious that you are trying to spread misinformation. Go ahead and provide some objective proof of the claims in the statement I'm replying to, otherwise please go spread misinformation elsewhere. The KlimaDAO team cares deeply about Klima investors and will continue to spread positive vibes while building revolutionary technology for years to come.

          Mike_Fast
          Thank you I will read the documents.

          You haven’t explained why this information of falling off a cliff was not included in the published infographic so that investors were fully informed? You seem to have indicated that this was known about and discussed amongst the inner circle for some time and maybe even back to KIP-3 times. This is not a minor tweak of little significance, it is a major unforeseen and undisclosed change.

          You mention the informal AMA and drumming up interest. So how many investors tuned in and how many investors are there in KLIMA?

          The following question remains unanswered and I cannot find this information in my searching.

          If this goes to a snapshot vote where can I see the rules that govern how this is conducted ie are they weighted votes depending on amount of KLIMA held or is it by simple wallet count or other? What majority is required to be reached to be successful etc?

          Why is this most important information not included in the “Proposals rules and guidelines” I would have thought that this is absolutely central to the fair running of any poll but it is once again another hidden fact.

          TRANSPARENCY is crucial and absolutely integral to the successful running of a DAO but this has not been happening.

          I do not have time to calculate the figures properly but I suppose we print over 20 000 klima each day. To keep rfv value 5 Bct / klima we should take in over 100 000 Bct every day. It seems that this is currently not happening. So we are inflating too fast so APY reduction is needed to keep price premium and rfv more stable. I Support it.

          Leveraged liquidations have slaughtered DAO prices.
          Lowering the APY again this quickly is going to lead to much MORE leverage.

          I can't be the only one that sees it.

          I get that whales want to preserve their voting power, especially with prices falling and big entry positions being that much cheaper but driving holders to lever up to try to make up losses almost feels predatory.

          I'm just a tiny minnow so it's no biggie to me but everyone really needs to think this through instead of assuming the APY is the cause of the price action.

          Looks more like whales dumping and wiping out levered positions has had much much much bigger impact.

            coingecko based on timeline of the current proposal and snapshot, the reduction will start nudging and only complete by early February.

            TheKnownUnknowns Please kindly elaborate on your thoughts around the correlation between lowering APY and leverage

            TheKnownUnknowns Lowering the APY again this quickly is going to lead to much MORE leverage.

            Car54 I believe what he means is that reduction in Annual Percentage Yield (APY) terms is a yield projection based on 1 year. Practically, the returns you realize are relatively short-term (measured based on daily or weekly ROI). This is why the following ROI expectations were included in the original proposal.

            A 0.35% Daily Reduction.
            A 1.87% Weekly Reduction.
            13 more days to double your sKLIMA balance.

            Sirob So basically as a user, you'd always weigh whether market buy or bonding gives you the highest return

            So based on @optima example - say now 5-day rebase yield is 8%, and for bonding to make sense for you, you require at least a 5% ROI on your bond so that you net higher returns when you adopt the 4,4 strategy as compared to a regular market buy and stake strategy. And you check this with the bonding calculator.

            Now when we reduce our staking APY such that 5-day rebase yield is 6%, this will increase demand for bonds. This increase in demand pushes bond price up to a new equilibrium, where the ROI of bonding is reduced to 4% but profitable enough for an actor to continue to 4,4. As a result of the decrease in bond discount, all else equal, the protocol now effectively pays less for the same assets it buys. As for stakers, they still get the same rewards but 13 days later (based on proposal). In other words, lowering the APY allows the protocol to incentivize less per bond it sells and the Klima treasury takes in more RFV per bond.

              khyezr Thanks. I did actually manage to figure this out, but yours is a great explanation.