This topic has been created for the Eco Trustees to discuss the monetary policy that will be enacted on Saturday, July 22nd. As always, the policy will be in effect for two weeks — this is for Generation 1020, which runs from July 22 - August 5 2023.
Trustees are encouraged to post via replies under this topic to:
- Discuss what policy they have proposed and/or are voting for, and why
- Engage in public dialogue/debate with other Trustees
Community discussion will occur in the #trustee-community channel on Discord.
I believe we have learned enough from the rebasing experiment, and it is time to focus on Random Inflation. For this reason, I have asked Christian to attend our next video meeting to explain it to us, both how it works and why it is even there. Based on how that convo goes, I will either support a proposal that leverages that tool, or I will begin to consider that high APR one as a possibility.
Not sure if we will be able to write a proper Random Inflation proposal this cycle, there are 3 days left and we need to discuss and simulate the selected values before submitting it.
For instance, given user growth rate r, gas fee g ETH and x% APR, what’s the percentage of existing and new users who will stake their ECO? Now, with the first two being in the same ballpark, what’s the change in the number of existing and new stakers, given x1% APR? Yes, it is not a deterministic system and the conditions above are nowhere near close to being the only. But how should we go about it to get a better feel for what we tweak and what we can expect as a response? To put it differently, given 1k+ users, gas fee dynamics as the current condition, with ample room to maneuver, are we sure that leaving high and edge-case APR values out of our early observations won’t turn out to be the missing link down the road? I’ll support the set of high APR (a constant under various gas conditions).
In light of the implementation of Optimism, Pure Macro has decided to tone down its policy proposal to 18%/30. In addition to our previous arguments regarding accessibility and supporting stability, we’d like to see if a relatively high interest rate and short duration lockup helps generate more interest in ECO.
Similar to the last cycle, I will rank the experimental 18%/30d and rebase proposals as my first and second choices, other proposals will be ranked by real APR from highest to lowest.
Given that our rebase experiment is complete, and random inflation requires modification before implementation, I agree that the 18%/30 is the logical next experiment to try.
Hi everyone, Bismarck proposed the same rebase proposal as last cycle because it was before we established consensus about moving on to random inflation. Either way, I think the rebasing has been a success as we’ve seen the first uptick in pricing in a while.
For this cycle, I voted on 18%/30 as my highest choice and then ranked the remaining proposals by descending APR — agnostic of rebase amount (which was only one proposal with -1%) — very similar to how I voted last cycle.
I was surprised to see a -35% rebase proposed — by the far the most drastic rebase proposal we’ve seen to date, if memory serves. I’d love to hear the rationale & thinking from whoever proposed that one. For this cycle, I have ranked it lowest — below even the default 0/0/0 proposal — but would love to understand the thinking ahead of the next cycle.