As I see it, we have two options with a dynamic APR:
- time lockups (bonds?), when the APR is based on the period you are willing to lock it (3% for a month, 5% for two, 10% for a year, 20% for two...or similar)
- semidinamic APR, where we se the APR for a period (month or quartal) based on the hive debt .... because the debt and the haircut is the ultimate ruler of the system, example (debt is bellow 10%, we set a 20% APR) debt between 10% and 20%, a 10% APR, debt above 20%, 0% APR ... this again as an example numbers), we can even have a slider from 0% to 20% for each change in the debt.
If we have time-specific lock-up vaults, then no investor will ever complain about changing APYs, because it's not changing for their already-committed investments.
When I lock up money in a CD, I don’t care if the bank cuts interest rates on new CDs, at least not until mine matures.
That's the way HBD APY should operate.
A semidinamic apr sounds good, as long as it doesn't make the code less secure, of course.
Anyway, let's see how the HBD debate ends
All for debate ... on another note, some might argue that going in the opposite directions with the HBD APR, from the second point I described above in the semidinamic case is actually better .... example, high debt = high HBD APR, not the opposite, this to stimulate more funds into the ecosystem ... its a whole game theory and monetary policy that we are talking about :)