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

I honestly think that they APY should be slowly reduced and gradually…. I think the project is amazing and definitely has a big future ahead of itself.
The most important think will be partnerships and building up the project and adding more assets to the treasury.
My question is, will the price rise because or reduction of emissions?

We have barely got over two reductions and corrections and yet another proposed reduction. Moreover, why publish the Cujo Expected Emissions dashboard if the intention is not to follow the KIP-03 framework or to do something completely out of time vis-a-vis the next Tier in May 2022. Furthermore, it is obvious the APY has to reduce, but it has to be orderly and don't be fooled that lowering APY will magically solve the price issue, point in fact, look at the OG OHM....

100% on board with rate reductions. What bothers me is that it appears to come as a shock and need to do it NOW! Could some of the wise folks figure out some formula for reduction so everyone knows how it is intended to go? Sure going to 1000% is gonna suck, but if it keeps the project alive, let's do it!

I'd also like to propose that instead of looking at rebase %, just vote on APY. If the community had done that, this entire proposal and issue would not have happened. As I read it, this is happening because we want to keep APY the same...so why aren't we just doing that?

Anyone help me understand?

If I wold be new investor I would probably just think how to make a quick buck with Klima and what are the risks of that. I think this is biggest crowd in crypto defi. Ppl want to make money fast.

Things I would consider as a new investor would be what is the APY and what are probability to Klima to lose value per token. Since price is closing risk free value I would think high APY is not that necessary anymore to lure new ppl.

Ppl who bought at top are gonna hurt because they can't reach the value they intial invested in dollars that fast.

At this point it's protocols health and security is most important. Growing big treasure of carbon tons to grow runaway is very important Imo. Also having new bonding instruments opens new streams of revenue and builds connections to "real world". Apy and value of Klima token is still crazy good for traders and 9.9s if Apy gets to 8000% ish.

I wold think high APY is just too good for whales to buy huge bags, double them and dumb rebasing rewards to markets hurting Klimas price. This in mind I think bonding is going to be more effective if/when price of Klima rises.

In favor of both.

I think even 8000% APY is too high, not sure how sustainable that is, but I understand that it would maybe result in losing some backers that took big losses and are still on board.

This is a marathon, not a sprint, the goal is to be an amazing project down the road, not a get rich over night scheme.

My full support to voting Yes for both.

Car54 I agree. APY need to come down but not at this stage. Look at OHM price has only been going down hill after reduction in APY. I favor APY reduction but please let more investor come in with such low price and high APY.
Please do not say, price does not matter, it does matter a lot, Not every investor in this project is here to give their money away for Carbon offset. Everything matters, price, framework, carbon offset and the whole crypto market.
I think current price level is a great entry point for average investor when they see low price and high APY. At least let new entrant double their holding then reduce APY.
I've been buying Klima from $3K to $135 and bringing my entry price down. It hurts to look at the portfolio now but I'm sure it will be in the green given some time but reduction in APY so early will hurt most of the people including myself and new entrants.
I hope you cancel proposal to reduce APY.
Cheers.

Don't let short term sell pressure from short term traders inform your view on APY reduction. Lower APY builds the carbon backing faster (increasing backed value), reduces the discount required for profitable bonding (less dilution for stakers), and increases the amount of time we spend in each growth phase. Also, note with this reduction that your token doubling time only increases by about 2 weeks (time to double your amount of Klima).

Periodically I’ll see posts implying that a reduced APY will “fix” the price issue. What’s the issue? The price is going to eventually settle 10-20% above its intrinsic value in the long term.

I’m a long term investor and planning to hold for at least 5 years, thus I’d rather keep the APY the same till May. (Trying to collect those higher rebases for as long as I can).

I understand the need to reduce the APY. And I actually support reducing the APY. However, I propose a more gradual step down, starting in 60-90 days.

By the way, what a great project. Lots of good discussion without the name calling you see in other forums. Excited to be here. Keep up the good work guys. I’ll still be supportive even if the rate is reduced quicker than I’d like.

If the KIP-9 proposal eventually passes and rebase moves to 0.312%, will there still be a reduction in May 2022 and Dec 2022 per the Dune emission prediction dashboard?

Is there a strategy here ? We rebased a couple of weeks ago, if we rebase to 8000 in a week or two will we rebase again a couple of weeks after that ? I would like to see a roadmap of reduction based upon underlying parameters and just follow that. I thought there was a link back to BCT holdings in earlier rebasing discussions not sure if that was ever followed or still valid given we have MCO as well. That said I agree to both proposals

The health of the protocol is the most important.
It will hurt a lot of investors who are still to breakeven which will now take a bit longer.
In terms of stabilising the price maybe in the long term it does but as we have seen in the short term it doesn't.

After the last reduction it doesn't feel like we have given things time to settle before we do the next one.
Lowering the APY might help attract the right type of investors instead of the ones trying to manipulate the protocol to make a quick buck.

I will vote for both but the notice period to all stakeholders has to be fair so they don't feel that wool has been pulled over their eyes.

I mentioned in the forum as well that we are talking about a rate reduction but nothing mentioned on the main site to inform potential new investors of what might come into force.

With the fall in price of Klima I think we should wait for the price to stabilise before you do anything that will further push the price down.

I also believe we should wait at least 1 or 2 months before making a new reward rate reduction.

I am also very concerned about the item 2. As my understanding It says in simple words that Policy team will adjust the reward rate if the APY raises too much or decreases too much outside the target APY of the KIP-3.

The KIP-3 says the current APY must be between 30000% and 2000%. But we are already in 27000% with 90% stakers. If the % stakers decreases, the APY must increase. That is how the game works. If the policy team interfere on that changing the reward rate to control the APY, they will be changing the game system, which is very bad.

The point is: the KIP-3 framework is OK. We just need to choose a better reward rate that matches the APY range in all use cases (% stakers, circulation supply, ...) , instead of allowing the reward rate to be adjusted by the Policy Team on demand to follow the APY in the KIP-3. IF that happens, the reward rate was wrongly set at first place.

  • Cujo replied to this.

    zoubovsky

    CronosZ

    Regarding allowing Policy to make some adjustments, this is in regards to changes in external factors that nobody at Klima can control. Mainly the average block times (and by extension rebases). When Policy proposes these major changes we have to assume certain values for those that are dynamic (staked % for example). When evaluating any minor changes we would use the same values to evaluate whether any adjustment is needed. The variable APY based on staked percentage is a critical component of the game theory and I personally wouldn't be for changes that would negate that mechanic.

    I think this is too early for an APY reduction. Short term prices matter so we don't risk having to dig into the treasury to prop the price back up (worst case). I think it's bad timing with markets being so fragile/uncertain at the moment and the price is susceptible to people dumping if they're unsatisfied with the APY. The only way this makes sense to me now is if we can get a big boost to the treasury that directly coincides with the APY reduction and widely distribute such news to encourage remaining 3,3

    I made my maths, and 8,000% APY only impacts my long-term projection by USD 15. Even, I am expecting another APY reduction by April-May.

    In favor of reducing APY and grant policy minor APY adjustment changes.