You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I propose to start using the 30 day volume weighted average at Cycle 24, instead of the 90 day that we were using until now. The reason is to reduce the volatility contributors and DAO assumed with the 90 day average, and make it more similar to the rate reimbursements use.
I find this proposal has been already discussed in the Cycle 22 rate issue and this is the conclusion of the discussion. If there is no opposition to it, it will be approved without DAO voting needed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I propose to start using the 30 day volume weighted average at Cycle 24, instead of the 90 day that we were using until now. The reason is to reduce the volatility contributors and DAO assumed with the 90 day average, and make it more similar to the rate reimbursements use.
I find this proposal has been already discussed in the Cycle 22 rate issue and this is the conclusion of the discussion. If there is no opposition to it, it will be approved without DAO voting needed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: