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.

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?
  • ...

    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.

      I'm here from day 1 and i will stay for a long time. In this hard time for Klima reducing APY is much needed of course if we want to survive!

      Things i don't like about all this APY saga and things is that is presenting now, like someone else, some strange third party made high APY in the first place 37,000 in the beginning. Reward rates high like someone else made them high and suddenly high APY is a MEME. And little by little everything starts to look like MEME, reward rate, runaway, bonding, etc, everything now needs to be changed... If high APY is a MEME, why made it so high in the first place. If APY was not so high in the beginning, lots of people will not invest, and we will have much calm and better state as we do have now.

      I just want to say, be fair to Your investors, don't make them look like they are crazy because protocol promises high rewards. People who hold until now deserve better than calling them apy chasers and moon boys, they invested, and they are in losses now.

      Don't change the narrative because we are in hard times!

      I don't talk for myself, i don't have a problem holding it, this is not my first rodeo, but be fair to Your fellow investors, we are all in this together!

      Let's go KLIMA!

      Crypto_Coin_Guy To add on to what has been chimed in, the reason why we have an open forum and vote like this is that we truly value and want to uphold the values of a DAO such that no rules could be changed in any part of the game. KIP-3 was titled as a framework to provide guidance so that we could align expectations based on how the space was developing at the time.

        grap

        I would agree with this. Would we get a new roadmap? The infographic with the tree growing from seed to maturity (which I can't find now!) stated that the size of the treasury is the key factor in when we reduce APY. What will it be going forward? I'd rather not be going to snapshot every time we want to adjust the APY

        I am a bonder, and as a bonder, I voted for rip band-aid off and reduce reward rate to 0.164%. Long-term is our play.

        Band aid off. Sustainability is crucial

        khyezr KIP was listed as a framework. However, the graphic which listed the stages and APY that corresponded with same was not. The graphic was used to market KLIMA. There were no asteriks. There was nothing listed on the graphic that said that it was only a framework or guideline.

        I can't speak for what the law is outside of the US, but if someone advertises one thing (the graphic) and then does something else - that is a big no no. It can subject the company to treble damages and all sort of other grief. It is not enough that the KIP may have said something else because that information was not in the graphic. It is buried at the bottom of the KIP. Individuals are not expected to go and hunt for information like that. They are entitled to rely on the graphic that is put out and marketed with. And I can assure that many many people did.

          TheLawyer You have individuals who have invested in this project who are US persons. The DAO marketed with the infographic that specifically delineated the APY range which corresponded to certain supply levels. There were no asteriks, no other language or statements published with the infographic that said what was on the infographic was merely a "guideline" or "framework." If you think that a federal district court in the US is going to play the personal jurisdiction game with the DAO when it has and continues to purposefully avail itself to US persons, taken money from US persons, you are sorely mistaken. I support this project, but from a legal perspective it is foolish in my opinion to adopt something that is inconsistent with what was marketed. The purpose of this discussion is for everyone to have input and to clearly understand the legal risks of a decision that reduces below 2000 percent . This needs to be discussed frankly and very openly.

          KingArthur33 There is nothing wrong with the vote itself. The DAO can vote to reduce below 2,000%. There is no injury to anyone until the APY is actually below 2,000 percent. But the DAO needs to consider the legal risks of implementing anything inconsistent with the infographic for persons who purchased based on the infographic. Companies do all sorts of things all the time understanding that they might be sued. The DAO just needs to know that there are a class of persons who might sue. This is not some metaphorical possibility. These kinds of claims are being fleshed out in US courts.

          At a minimum:

          1. The DAO needs to take down the infographic now or immediately add explanatory language to it that it is only a guideline or framework.

          2. If this vote passes and the APY is reduced below 2,000% you will limit the number people who can potentially sue.

          3. Going forward you need to always use language that allows for wiggle room. It is not enough that such language is buried in a KIP or a Medium article--particularly when the actual info being marketed does not have that explanatory language.

          4. Have legal review the marketing before it goes out to avoid these kinds of issues.

          It very well may be that nobody does anything. That there are no suits and everyone proceeds along with 1000% just fine. I hope that is the case if that is what happens. But you have a lot of angry people who have lost a lot of money in this project. You are giving those people a chance to fight back in a way that is completely avoidable. Respectfully, an extra 50 or so days of runway is just not worth all of that.

            Before I can make up my mind about this KIP I would like to get some clarity from team regarding the following points:
            Why is it bad if people unstake their klima, sell into the pool and then bond BCT or other bond assets? In the end this increases the amount of carbon locked in the klima treasury. All we had to worry about was the downward price action it puts on KLIMA but that will be largely addressed by the inverse bonds being introduced soon. Additionally locking more carbon and taking it out of LP pools increases the price of these carbon assets. If KlimaDAO still wants to achieve the stated goal of increasing the cost of carbon offsets then won't reducing the incentives interfere with this goal? We all understood that KLIMA holders will indirectly subsidize onchain carbon credits to achieve that goal and we agreed with it as the traditional market needed to be disrupted. Are we stopping/reducing that subsidy and letting the traditional market decide how much we can disrupt them?
            Finally I would like to ask the team if they truly think there's no other way of achieving the intended long term stability via alternate methods such as stake locking etc? IMO 10 day lock to unstake will be enough to ensure majority of bond inflows comes from outside the system and doesn't put downward pressure on price.
            Thanks