# Reduce APR of Multiplier Points

**URL:** <https://gov.gmx.io/t/reduce-apr-of-multiplier-points/3214>\
**Category:** Proposals\
**Created:** [February 9, 2024, 3:57am UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/reduce-apr-of-multiplier-points/3214 "2024-02-09T03:57:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 66

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![xdev\_10](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/gov.gmx.io/xdev_10/32/196_2.png) [@xdev\_10](https://gov.gmx.io/u/xdev_10)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2024, 2:06am UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/reduce-apr-of-multiplier-points/3214/66 "2024-03-18T02:06:39Z")

</div>

> [@mhuthma](#):
>
> When is a governance coin not a governance coin? When you propose a re-vote only 5 weeks after the 200% cap was implemented. Changing the cap to 100%, or any other cap, undermines the credibility of the token’s value for governance

hi @mhuthma, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, my thinking was that since the MP emissions vote may change dynamics for new users, it may be appropriate to vote on it together with a paired MP cap

i apologize if it came across as undermining the governance process

> [@mhuthma](#):
>
> You can either devote your time to re-arranging the existing slices distribution or you can devote your time to growing the entire pie

agree with this as well

there are a lot of different suggestions each with their pros and cons [Towards Addressing the Question of MPs - Consolidated Suggestions](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315)

i think a sentiment vote could be done to decide on which solutions are preferred

while i have my own thoughts on things, at the end of the day, it is our desire to work on what the community as an aggregate prefers, if the community decides that changing the tokenomics is important then we will look into prioritizing that with other tasks

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.gmx.io/t/reduce-apr-of-multiplier-points/3214)._