• Proposal
  • OIP-76: Create Inverse Bond Policy Lever

Sadinoel

If you don't have 3,3 you don't have inflation control;

Which means you don't have bond issuance;

I am perhaps missing the correlation. Can you guide me to some learning resources to the right mental model?

My current understanding is: As long as there is (positive or negative) delta between market price and backing; (direct or inverse) bonds can be issued. Each bond increases backing.

    This proposal does not relieve sell pressure. It actually increases sell pressure. By allowing "an orderly exit", OIP-76 actually encourages exit. This is a free get away pass to the paper handed. Please, Zeus, needs to weigh in on this. The majority of comments are in favor which means some people are just waiting to drain the treasury and dump at "backing price". Please understand that this proposal puts treasury assets at risk. It is negatively accretive in intent. If you are interested in the long term health of Olympus you will vote no and tell everyone else to vote no. Strongly opposed!

    Sadinoel gets it. Providing exit liquidity to butt hurt investors who are in panic mode is detrimental to the long term health of Olympus. We need to build the treasury, not shrink it so some people can extract an investment they have lost faith in. Vote No on OIP-76.

      Dreamboat I feel you ser, this was my worry - but apparently its being done in a way that shouldn't impact treasury…Still wrapping my smol brain around it but I trust the policy team…just still in the process of verifying…someone like @Asfi or @sh4d0w would be able to explain better than I…or Father @Zeus

      Dreamboat …also, I think giving investors a "potential" escape hatch gives them more confidence to take a larger risk - so on a psychological level, KNOWING that there is, in essence, an insurance policy on their OHM should be beneficial for the protocol in the long-term

        Sadinoel

        Demand for an asset is driven by perceived value, not money back guarantees. OHM is currently selling at about 67 bucks. That's your downside risk. Your upside is infinite. If that risk benefit ratio doesn't sound appealing then the buyer should look elsewhere. What other major crypto assets feel the need to offer a partial refund in the form of treasury subsidized exit liquidity? If I buy Tesla stock and the price drops to one hundred do I get a free car? No. People just need to look at the real earnings accruing to the Olympus protocol… the expanding partnerships. We need to market the bull case to a knowledgable audience. Build it and buyers will come.

          I agree with dreamboat. There is a huge risk on this proposal. If there is a "big whale" who wants to sell he always has the problem to find buyers in the market. Now he can sell his assets (ohms) for a "fixed" price and at maturity he get's his money from …… the treasury. Normally I would suggest a negative APY to solve the pressure. But then the problem is nobody wants to invest by a negative APY. The risk is that Olympus will die with this proposal and the people who have a lot of OHM's will kill the treasury true inverse bonding, because there is cash to pay out. And what will be the price of the inverse bond in this volatile market? Just when the price is below 1 Ohm = < 1 Dollar then is this maybe a good proposal or a negative APY.

          abipup

          abipup

          We should use recently price fall down testing this idea, and see what happen.

          We have to remember we still survive because we have strong and stable treasury.

          Now that ‘Inverse Bond’ is being proposed and likely goes through, the holy cow question of ‘ohm has RFV backed bt treasury, but treasury is not redeemable’ will be squashed to death. My question is , wont this publicly know floor price of Ohm encourage degens to take Leverage and do (9,9) with full confidence than ever before? What could be the consequences of this?

          BowTiedTigris

          Fully agree…locked staking that correctly incentivises long-term behaviour is missing from the ecosystem. The 3,3 meme could use a policy lever that explicitly rewards 3,3 behaviour, with long-term staking contracts quantitatively superior to unlocked sOHM.

          The proposal that I had in General was to have an OTC mechanism to avoid the large holder exit through market sell… the Inverse Bond is a good solution however we have to set some rules, some are mentioned in the OP but I see one is missing:

          1. The idea is not to allow everyone to sell and exit, only larger bags that would affect the liquidity and perhaps this number can increase in relation to the existing liquidity… for example the inverse bond has to be at least 5,000 ohm transaction.. you cannot inverse bond less than that .. if you have less just market sell for example… and later when Ohm has deeper liquidity this number can go up as a percentage?
          2. We should never ever have a declining RFV total value .. so the blackhole of stables should never change... therefore, no one can inverse bond and take stables out of treasury only risk-on assets ..
          3. We should never allow partner tokens to be taken out (CVX, ALCX, etc.) as that will also harm their PA since the person inverse bonding CVX or ALCX will likely dump it immediately in a market sell ..
          4. This leaves us with ONLY a few select assets that we can inverse bond .. TBH I think the ONLY asset that we should allow to be Inverse Bonded is wETH and possibly wBTC .. that is it… these two have deep liquidity and during a downtrend when their price is declining letting them out of treasury could be desirable to tilt the treasury towards more stables less volatile assets …

          6 days later

          i think is a great idea to keep the bond program alive during down trend other wise customers who rely on this passive income stream will go somwhere else a may not return

          How could this mechanism fail?

          a month later

          what's the action of the next step? we appreciate your misison and vision, but hope you are not going to disappoint us..

          Write a Reply...