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

Absolutely going for both. Hence there is need to reduce the APY for a sustainable growth ahead...

No to both. There are other measures to take first, to make ramping on easier for newcomers instead of via sushi only. What is more, before we speak of any reduction, how about all pklima is cancelled? And we still need to know how much klima from aklima is still in wallets ready to crush the price. Be transparent.

grap Totally agree with this. This point has been brought up in the Office Hours before, to request the policy team to be more sensitive to investors’ concern over the current price action, especially when communicating new policies for the long term health of the protocol. Right now, even if the protocol is growing its treasury and reaching carbon targets, the success of the protocol isn’t really translating into the success of investors’ returns as yet. Surely these policies will have some effect on price action, as some have pointed out in this forum discussion, however these are not included as considerations upfront in the KIPs.

As someone who got into Klima when the price was down from ATH but still in the four digits right before the never-ending dip, it’s never easy to see the portfolio 85% down and with no guarantee of easing up. While I was very excited about Klima and still believe in the vision of the DAO and the team, I’m also not here to throw away hard-earned money. The sharp decrease in price is really penalizing the early investors of the project, and it’s a hard pill to swallow.

Having said that, I know the project team is probably tackling issues as they come, as all start-ups do, and also working really hard towards the very exciting prospect of making Klima the centre of the on-chain carbon ecosystem, so thank you, your hard work is much appreciated.

TLDR: Change the APY if you must, because the pragmatist in me understands that the project needs to survive the crypto winter, and flourish for a long long time to come, otherwise there’s zero chance of me recouping my initial investment, let alone make some returns off this. Let’s vote survival over short term gains.

let's get this APY to more sustainable level. Agree with this proposal

Maybe create snapshot whitelist addresses that have staked 30 days or more to keep current APY with gradual decrease over X months. Create new stake vault for 1000%APY migrate stakers less than 30 days and allow all new stakers.

Please don't decrease the APY again so quickly after two previous decreases. I fully understand the need for a further APY decrease over time as the project matures. However, this feels way too quick and not the right moment. Price has been downtrending for quite some time now, with a lot of (dare I say most) investors already heavily underwater. Decreasing APY again will make them bleed even more, plus it will likely trigger even more sell-off and accelerate the drop in price. I fear this will have an adverse effect and not help the treasury grow at all.

Like some people suggested, I'm all for a gradual decrease over a longer period of time.

Brian33

I reiterate again

“Do not expect those who have paid those sorts of high prices to see the dream in the same manner as the IDO participants
The first group are looking at this from deep underwater whilst the IDO group have their rose coloured glasses firmly on and are now protecting their position at the expense of the others. Selfish actions indeed.”

My point was not whether they took risk because they did and with risk comes reward as it should be. It is about the current perspective from which the different groups view these current proposals and you have ignored this because it does not fit neatly into your narrative. One is in a position of losing vast amounts of money whilst the other is enjoying huge profits. The truth is that without the support of the later comers the IDO group could well have been in a negative position. So show some respect to those who created the position for you to be able to sit in your lofty position looking down at us.
By all means reduce the APR because it is unsustainable for the future but do it in a TRANSPARENT structured and pre published lineal manner instead of this ambush economics that you have sprung upon us. Unless of course we are ACTUALLY in a much worse position than most of us believe and this urgent action is akin to applying CPR.
The difference between a rug pull and the Klima price today is but a mere 2%

    I am all for lowering the APY but not in such a drastic step. Let's stretch it over 60 to 90 day period. The price took a massive hit in the last few days. This will push loyal backers further in the red.

    I am OK with more control for the devs.

    I agree with comments above, people who went in at 1k and above will become the victims of the ideology of they will not be granted the possibility to gain a few tokens before the APY drop. I went in at 350 level and I'm deep in red.

    These things cannot happen overnight.

    The KIP-3 graphic helps a lot of us understand what the APY ranges are for each phase, but is there a timetable on when each of these respected milestones would be crossed? Not sure if this is something we could include in the Dune dashboard or something. Just seems this reduction took many by surprise.

    I did buy fairly close to the top so would love to see the APY remain higher for time being. That being said, I have solidified myself as a long-term holder so would still support the reduction as well.

    Brian33 Every individual who knew about the IDO had a chance to participate... and then there are investors like me who heard about the project after the IDO and bought in well above $1000... and now it will take months if not years to make back our investment. I understand the health of the KLIMA project is at risk, but get it together and quick whiplashing the community around. Maybe KLIMA needs some other revenue generating projects to help support APY?

    AussieWayne

    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.

    AussieWayne The truth is that without the support of the later comers the IDO group could well have been in a negative position. So show some respect to those who created the position for you to be able to sit in your lofty position looking down at us.

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

    AussieWayne By all means reduce the APR because it is unsustainable for the future but do it in a TRANSPARENT structured and pre published lineal manner instead of this ambush economics that you have sprung upon us.

    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. 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.

    Brian33 This is equivalent to:
    A 0.35% Daily Reduction.
    A 1.87% Weekly Reduction.
    13 more days to double your sKLIMA balance.

      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?