IMP this should be considered as a bugfix and no need for a proposal to approve it.
Just make an announcement and let us know, loyal investors will understand.
BTW it's nice to have your investment developed by a team with open mind, they could just fix this in silence and doesn't do the UI change for APY, and make the change together with KIP-3, few users will notice a thing.
Best wishes for KlimaDao.
Agreed with [unknown]. This seems more of a bug fix rather than a new proposition to be voted for. Thanks for the hard work.
Let's build up our treasury! LFG
Klima is just a seed of what it can be and this is a great step to solidify long term. slowly getting myself into defi and the amazing world of what the future can be.
Using a fixed number of blocks per epoch based on the prior 3-month average isn't flexible. If the number of blocks per epoch subsequently decreases over a period of time, you would need to raise the APY since
each epoch now takes longer. This constant re-adjustment could be painful, and it's always retrospective. An alternative approach might be to factor the average blocks per epoch into the APY calculation so that
the APY automatically adjusts as the number of blocks increases or decreases. This would operate similar to a moving average, where the average is calculated based on the block time of the previous 'n' days. https://polygonscan.com/chart/blocktime
@Cujo What change in operation has Policy team made to ensure such a mistake is not made and maybe proactively monitored in order to secure the stability of the economics in this. Because this "bug" mistake is SUPER crucial for liquidity.
Next question is how will the outcome of this vote affect the runway - do you have calculation to share for each scenario?
With that said im voting FOR as its the only right thing to do for the project... its beautiful how we can openly point at a problem and view it collaterally and share our vulnerability and hence be judged by the actions we take to improve and resolve. :
Lol must agree find this strange you noticed this very recent. I am month and a +- a week in Klima it only took me about 2 days to notice this and I like it. ;-)
Personally i don't like that KIP-3 and KIP-5 are so close on each other, i would prefer to see first what the effect is of KIP-3 on the token...
We can't say that if you compare KIima with other legit Dao's like OHM and Time that their decisions have been spot on to be honest.
So sorry voted "no" to soon after kip-3, i want to see the effect first. Just my point of view.
Greetings
If this is approve, is just confirming what we allowed in KIP-3 on real numbers, and with the next projection reduction (1mm-10mm supply) on 20.12.2021 (expected), I don't see any other scenario than Klima pumping hard...
technobuggy tbh the effect on price is short term and I think its all about the run way liquidity now.. thats the only main thread as I see it...
I just hope the team fix the policy checkup regulation, because the mistake is kinda super crucial... which is very good its discovered now...
What does not kill u make u stronger huh 
I do not understand why we would reduce to the rate to 0.417%, as this would reduce APY to 14,747%. Can someone please explain why this creates a target APY of 22k%? A 0.46% rebase would be about 24,650% APY. These are calculated using the 1200 epochs per year.
The informal poll numbers are misleading. Or am I missing something?
[unknown] Agreed - Nothing has actually changed with regards on KIP-3 reduction but sounds as if it is - maybe just address it more clearly then we roll. !Buidl
Regardless of pass or veto, or the underlying fundamentals or logic behind passing this amendment to KIP-3, many people are in it for the high APY and will continue to sell as price of $KLIMA plummets. Maybe we can implement mechanisms to further incentivize long term holds. Would help counter negative pressure to the price of $KLIMA.
A bad miss and no apology to boot. The cumulative rate cut of KIP-3 and KIP-5 combined is hard and unnecessary. The cut can be spread out over future emission reductions so as not to spook investor and maintain momentum.
This project is still too small and needs marketing. 40k % APY would attract more people. There are currently stronger competitors so reducing to 20k % APY would greatly damage this project.
to reduce twice in one week is just not sustainable when wanting to hold investors
[unknown] Agreed here. Always refer back to KIP-3 when looking at stuff like this. People need to remember that this isn't Snowbank lol. APY is great but if held too high for too long it could dilute the staking people. Less APY = Higher BCT backing which should help the intrinsic value of each KLIMA.
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
