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

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.

    Way too early to initiate another reduction hot on the heels of the last one.
    Free-falling never has a good end where a gradual controlled descent is a much preferred way to adjust nearly anything.
    It seems to me that there are now 3 broad groups of investors in KLIMA based on their buy in price. Those that paid double figures, those that paid triple figures and those that paid four figures.
    I wonder where the push and the support for this ill-conceived race to the bottom is coming from?
    It would seem that those in the first group could comfortably support this KIP from a position of personal financial comfort and at the same time being able to totally disregard the affects on the financial positions of the other two groups especially those in the four figure group.

    I do support a gradual planned and transparent program of adjustments going forward but not this and not now!

      With how quickly we're moving, and the robust deal pipeline of integrations ahead (which will all increase shareholder dilution from more bonds) - having a lower reward rate is extremely strategic for Klima to get these up and running. The short-term volatility is just that: short-term volatility! Investors who don't spook, and are here to benefit from all the new integrations we can now sustain, will be quite pleased IMO - FOR BOTH PROPOSALS.

      Fonjix2m I totally agree and reduction in APY will only hurt the project no. As we can see price is down already 97.2% which now way is good for any project. I think better way to stop this cascading sell pressure is to introduce withdrawal time limitation.
      Say if SKLIMA withdraw within 4 weeks of staking 50% of reward will be slashed and may be decrease reward 10% by every 4 weeks.
      something like this:

      1. staking time period less than 4 weeks from 26/01/2022 16:00 UTC or after 50% reward reduction
      2. staking time period less than 8 weeks from 26/01/2022 16:00 UTC or after 40% reward reduction
      3. staking time period less than 12 weeks from 26/01/2022 16:00 UTC or after 30% reward reduction
      4. staking time period less than 16 weeks from 26/01/2022 16:00 UTC or after 20% reward reduction
      5. staking time period less than 20 weeks from 26/01/2022 16:00 UTC or after 10% reward reduction
      6. staking time period more than 24 weeks from 26/01/2022 16:00 UTC or after 0% reward reduction

      And once someone withdraw reward reduction starts all over again. Forfeited rewards should be added to treasury to make treasury even stronger.
      I'm all in for healthy sustainable protocol but reducing APY will only hurt in such bearish time and it might be very hard to raise from where we are about to headed.

      I believe this will be good solution to stop this sell pressure.

      Cheers

        AussieWayne Even when you segment by groups: it all just boils down to how quickly every1 is diluted?

        I think you've seen so much downside, the upside is tough to fathom.
        This proposal will actually help all three 'tiers' of investors you mentioned. This is good for protocol, good for expansion fren. Nobody should vote from a position of 'personal financial comfort'. Everybody should vote from a position of optimal play for the Protocol. This is that.