Signal Request: Should we move to exponential rate stepping for stability fee polls?

Stability Fee increments in the polls should not be constant, they should be exponential.

Advantages

  • Lets us react more strongly to changing market conditions if necessary, without having to trigger an exceptional poll in an emergency.
  • Lets us do small scale tweaking if we want to try to find the lowest stability fee setting that maintains the peg, as some MKR holders seem to have voted for recently.
  • Lets MKR holders fix the .5% precision ‘problem’, if they want to.

Disadvantages

  • It prevents us from making more precise changes in a single poll. If we wanted to make a specific change for say 3%, this would take two polls under the proposed system.

The following options would capture doveish/hawkish sentiment in both directions with a minimum of polling options:

+8%
+4%
+2%
+1%
+0.5%

No change

-0.5%
-1%
-2%
-4%
-8%

  • Yes, we should do this.
  • No, we should not do this.

0 voters

Anyone signaling against this want to summarize their views? It seems like an easy win from my perspective.

8% +/- options seems like too big a hammer to have on offer while there are only a couple of unchecked whales taking part in voting.

With eight options its one less poll option then the current setup and gives the possibility of finer control, whats not to like?

I’m in favor. I like math. :grinning: