In general, I thought the intent of OIS was a great use of the token to actually stake against quality data.
HOWEVER: It depended largely on the publisher staking $PYTH against their own data to be effective as a “punishment” metric.
Whilst some publishers confidently backed up their data with tokens, the overwhelming majority of publishers staked zero tokens.
Furthermore, not one data misprint (for a slashing proposal) was submitted to the Pythian Council, as far as I can tell. So there was only carrot, and no stick?
In practice, OIS has been largely an inflationary exercise in token distribution, and not necessarily a successful experiment in data quality adherence.
If OIS has not been used for its initial intent (to reward good data + punish bad data), then we need to reassess if inflation is really necessary.
I will always welcome PYTH token utility, provided that it isn’t inflation wrapped up in a word-veil. Unfortunately I don’t think OIS really succeeded and would welcome a sunset.
For the record, however, I am glad that we ran the experiment to test the theory.