Sounds fair, lets get the apy to what was agreed and targeted with KIP-3!!

Why isn't this done automatically, instead of manually? The ability to adjust according to the average block rate is available with the contracts.

I understand the reasoning behind the reduction and our sustainability, but I think 2 reductions in rewards so close to one another is not the strongest move.

Although our runway still looks amazingly healthy after 75k% APY, I'd really like to see BCT backing go up, 100% support this proposal

[unknown] I believe Kip 3 must also be devoted due to false calculation. Everybody is surprised. A vote result depending on a false calculation may take us to a very false place.

[unknown] i agree, good point

[unknown] I understand the logic and this helps the protocol in long run!

Daishi Agreed, a huge problem here is that the project started with whales built in - so folks like me (10 sKliIMA and bought some at 3k) who've lost 40% of investment are stuck with dropping prices and lower APY's .. I'd have no problem voting for a lower APY if I had a ton of coin at the beginning. Whales might be all that's left because the economic incentive to remain or join up is disappearing when compared to other projects that are maintaining high APYs.

I predict people in my situation will dip out if the APY goes substantially down with the price bottomed out in the next couple weeks. But, this is a great project I hope it doesn't happen - I hope idealism doesn't get in the way of raw competitive economics which is the arena we're dealing with here

    Wonderful project and believe in it with a majority of savings in it and hope current price meltdown is solved or any incentive to hold for long term holders is lost, price charts tell a story of inflows right before distribution and outflows and sell right after distribution, zero reason to hold long term just trade away right before and after distribution. Think this issue must be solved or project is doomed, regardless of APY or timing issues of blockchain, a never ending downward pressure from short term traders being created and long term holders see holdings Disappear in value and being crushed to zero

    Full support. Sustainability is the way forward, we're not running a fun house here many folk are deluded by all these money game ohm forks that copy/pasta code and have no idea what in the world they're doing. Especially when it comes to proper policy management.

    Big props to the Klima policy team, some of the best in the game and only getting better!

    I believe decreasig apy twice so close together is a bad idea and could be damaging. Lets keep it at .46 till mid or end of Jan. If you decrease it then it will solve the issue and you wont lose those stakers that chase the high apys. Im in 4 projects, this is my series one where I have 60% of my investment and hopeing hold over a year , possibly 2. We need to attract new stakers not scare them away.

    hotstovesports yes, me neither!
    Early ones staked with 60k%, now dumped coin from 2,4k to 0,9k $, and reduced APY.
    I am already in 80% loss due to that. Even such high APY was not covering downslippage of price. With 20k APY now even more- just to vet back my initial I would need to wait for almost 4 month(considering that price remains stable at 900$)

      IMO it's an early call. I would wait after January

      I agree with the reduction of APY
      The platform health makes the community healthy on the long run

      bradboy To clarify on my previous comment, I am pro rate reduction to promote long term success of the project. I just would like to understand how a 0.417% rebase leads to a 22k% APY target. As previously stated, 0.417% rebase with 1200 epochs in a year is around 14,650% APY.

      I do not think it is smart to advertise an APY goal of 22k% "only" to produce 14k% APY. Unless my math is wrong, let me know. I do know that in general, when an asset underperforms projections, the sentiment tends to be more negative. My suggestion is to accurately display APY at the current rate, even though that number will fluctuate.

        I don't see what the controversy is. This was what we agreed upon from KIP-4. It's just about fixing an error. I'm all for it.