Wouldn't even call it a bandaid,
Were are not loosing out on anything with the reduction. We only strengten the protocol. We can always stake wsKlima in c3 if you wanna boost
KIP 14: Resilience Mode
I'm for ripping off the bad-aid as well.
But the benefits for that should be made very visible in the DAO to calm the sheep who only gauge the project's viability (and let's be frank: profitability) in terms of APY.
Make it as simple as possible for them to understand why lower APY = better for everyone long-term.
Rip that band-aid off, LFG
Crypto_Coin_Guy KIP-3 was a framework that we designed at the time based on how we thought the space would develop and to give some idea of how rates could vary. Now we think a lower reward rate would fair the protocol better and we will not go away from the framework unless the community agree to it.
Z33 Thank you , have edited the snapshot !
Klima has been hit uncharacteristically hard this cycle relative to other DAOs and it is obvious to me that this reduction in APY is necessary.
- Edited
APY reduction is good, I like that. Bond reduction is ok temporarily to allow for some price recovery, but if we start getting good premium it needs to be increased to match.
The focus on LP is what has caused so many problems. We spent all of those $1000+ klima bonds to buy BCT lp, which we then bought that same BCT back again at $50 klima. Moving forward we need to focus on treasury first, then liquidity.
I was saying months ago to split some of the BCT/USDC, Klima/BCT pools and put the BCT in the treasury, and use the USDC for DAO operations and burn the klima. My ideas were of course ignored for the longest time, now we have KIP for doing the BCT/USDC (finally). Probably too late now for the Klima/BCT pool because we already bonded most of the BCT out of it.
That would have save literally millions of dollars in klima emissions to get to where we are at now with the treasury and LP.
Crypto_Coin_Guy I really think you're misunderstood for a few simple reasons: 1) pKlimas came before KIP 3, 2) to be subject to unfair trade practices litigation in the US you need US parties which last time I checked there was none.
So I don't see the problem here.
It was only a matter of time before this happened and honestly I wish it didn't take this long. It wasn't sustainable at ALL 1000% is still high if u ask me.
- Edited
I almost wish you'd rip the band-aid off completely and get rid of the APY all together. Move on from being an OlympusDAO fork.
Dunnsy we needed the lp to make it possible for trading or the whole idea fells but it was at the expense of token holders now that we have significant lp they can stop the self inflicted bleed
APY means nothing if the market cap remains the same and everybody stakes for most of the time. It only means inflation and unmet gain expectations, bad all round. Rip the fucker off, make APY reasonable.
This is brilliant. Much needed.
For all those who are thinking about price action, APY.. etc, please focus on Market Cap (MC) that's what will grow your investment and MC is Supply x $price of KLIMA. With reduced APY, the Supply (# of circulating KLIMA) would increase at a much lower rate. If the treasury is able to accumulate high valued Carbon Tonnes, then it's growth would reflect in a higher MC, which means an increasing price.
IMHO... for all investors, who are looking for their investment growth in KLIMA, the gamechanger is that "The treasury growth should be faster than the dilution due to KLIMA supply increase".
Reducing the APY --> Lower emissions --> Slower increase of KLIMA supply
High quality Carbon Tonnes --> Growth in treasury --> Growth in MC and price (hopefully, as it is still driven by market sentiment).
To increase the treasury, the protocol by default creates a supply squeeze that causes the price to increase. This is evident in off-chain Carbon Credit prices. Not yet seen on-chain due to lack of demand for offsets on-chain. KLIMA Infinity would change that.
Plus the team is always looking at buying carbon credits at bulk discount. Imagine buying an Nature based Carbon Tonne in bulk @ $8 instead of $10 and over 12 months it costs $15.
Loving this proposal. Things are falling in place.
Rip the band-aid off. Engage Resilience Mode. Build the future.
CurlyHairedDude Exactly. Focus on bonding and utility and maybe the APY can be increased or decreased depending on the bonding capacity needed.
Reduce APY now as there isn't sufficient carbon tonnes available to bond and not much utility either. In a few months when partnerships, utility, retirement are in place, we can even increase the APY to increase bonding.
For me it's ok to change a plan if market conditions change. What is missing in my view is a new plan (that replaces the plan of KIP-3) instead of just another request for an APY reduction. Some of the questions we could answer in the new plan:
- what are the new assumptions regarding APYs and total supply?
- how will token holders benefit if market conditions change again for the better? Will we stay longer on a given APY level or is there a possibility increase APYs?
- what are the assumptions we made for this plan?
- ...
- Edited
Will the APY ever go up? I won't break even in even a year at 1000% APY. I'm not too okay with that. 2000% is fine I guess
Rip the band-aid off, high APY means nothing and reducing it will help our metrics A LOT (I still think that 1000% is too high ).
thereckoner Sir..... APY doesn't matter. If the APY goes down to 1000%, but the price goes to $500?
Let's say the treasury is $250m and market cap is $750m (3X of treasury). If there are 10m KLIMAs, then the price is $75. If there are 5m KLIMAs, then the price is $150. APY by itself won't help.
It's all about treasury growth vs KLIMA supply growth. If treasury growth outperforms emissions, then marketcap and price would go up.
thereckoner let's not forget klima is a DAO so it's not for profit. should the market situation change, why not highering again? do a proposal and let's have a vote. the DAO respects always the views of the community, cause it's community owned.