Sorry if this is stepping on any toes. I am sure lot of thoughts has already been put into what I am about to write here. Many clever gigabrains in the DAO. Full respect you probably already got brilliant things cooking. Always progressing, building. V2 is going to be bloody awesome.
Now, as a non-DAO member; as one in the thin, thin degen tail of bondoors … here is my user perspective. Feel free to disregard, discard or maybe use as it all or only parts for inspiration. Just trying a bit of contribution… So here is a conceptual view for a new core UI/UX, as I feel we have really outgrown the current UX model which was a good fit earlier when we had like 1 staking option and 1 bond option overall - but not any longer. My focus is UX content/structure/terminology rather than its design:
Olympus Unified Marketplace
- Improve CLARITY
- Improve COMPARABILITY
- Improve CREDIBILITY
- Consolidate Stake, Bond and Olympus Pro into a SINGLE, unified Marketplace (screen)
- Consolidate Unstake, Wrap, Bridge and Bond Claiming into a SINGLE, unified Portfolio/Asset Mgmt (screen)
- Shift all miscellaneous bloat data items off non-Dashboard screens and into the Dashboard
This simple MARKETPLACE screen makes the current Stake, Bond and Olympus Pro screens all redundant. They are redundant because they are all presented here as different product types, which can all be bought from the same screen. Please bear with me as I explain the terminology which may not fully align with established wordings, crypto lingo or how it is written in the contracts. But terminology is important, so here goes my current take on it:
What asset am I buying (my price risk = payoutToken) ? This is the most important data of all and deserves front row (column). Amount = fixed at 1. But 1 is just a reference – could be anything easily dividable with the market value column, like 1, 10 or 100 etc
DDA = Demand Deposit Account: Also known as “STAKING”. Staking is the embedded lingo in crypto. Possibly assumed due to crypto’s historical link with the mining concept. In a more general financial sense, the term DDA seems more appropriate and conventional. An alternative to consolidate a pure BOND terminology, would be to refer to DDA/staking as a “SERIAL BOND” as the 8 hour rebasements correspond with the staged coupon payments of a serial bond. See below. BOND however, implies a lockup period – but there is none for DDA/staking. Thus, DDA is the most suitable (although non-degen) term for this product.
Serial = Serial bond: A serial bond is a bond that pays out staged coupons at certain intervals. The V1 bonds, as well as OP bonds, have been referred to as “LINEAR VESTING BONDS”. A more appropriate and conventional terminology would be to refer to them as “SERIAL BONDS”. Each block constitutes the interval with which new coupon payments are made to the bondholder.
Fixed term: The V2 bonds are zero coupon bonds with fixed end date. This can be referred to as fixed term. And that terminology probably aligns with the contract terminology on the block chain.
Fixed expiry: The V2 bonds also appear to offer fixed-expiration bonds. We have not seen them yet, so I am guessing a bit here. I assume they will have a fixed maturity date. This still makes them fixed term – but their maturity date is predetermined, and not dependent upon the datetime when a depositor executes his transaction. One could have “fixed expiry” as its own type – as the duration would be variable depending on date of purchase. But consolidation of information is sometimes valuable, hence we should probably skip the “fixed-expiry” as a UI term and instead only use “fixed-term” for this type of bond.
Inverted bonds: We have not seen them yet. I am assuming they would essentially best be classified as “fixed term” too. Its just a shifting of what assets go in, and what assets go out. Thus, no additional type is needed. (See ETH example in the table)
This is the lockup period as measured in days, or specified by explicit timestamp.
DDA has no lockup, thus Maturity = 0.
Fixed term = according to contract
Fixed expiry = Datetime of expiry. Or days remaining (as illustrated) until expiry datetime is reached.
Serial = treat it as fixed term type.
This column exists to show the current market valuation of the product, denominated in the SAME currency as the principal. It is not a “market PRICE” because it is not what a depositor would pay – but rather “market VALUE” to be compared with the principal.
DDA = Fixed to same as Principal; 1 OHM is always 1 OHM if time duration = 0.
Others = Discount * (Principal amount / price of quoteToken as expressed in principal token)
How many units of price token (quoteToken) do I need to deposit to get the principal amount ?
DDA = Fixed to same as Principal; 1 OHM is always 1 OHM if time duration = 0.
Others = How many price units correspond to the market value of the product?
YTM = Yield to Maturity
As a single purchase, what would be my return (yield) at the end of the duration? YTM = Principal amount / market value For DDA, there is no maturity hence it is left blank. For serial bonds, assume no mid-term harvesting but rather entire bond is held to maturity.
APR = Annual Percentage Rate
Without compounding any yield, what is my annual return? For DDA, there is automatic compounding so APY is more relevant, but still print the APR as next reward yield * 365 * 8 (hours) For DDA, the APR would perhaps be a relevant metric to how much Olympus Give could yield on my behalf. Leave APR blank or at 0 when YTM < 0%.
APY = Annual Percentage Yield
With compounding, what is my annual return? For the bonds, assume they would be reinvested at the same yield as the current bond offfering provides. Leave APR blank or at 0 when YTM < 0%.
Key metric. Many OP bonds are just irrelevant for any sized investor due to their constricted max sizing. And gas fees further constricts the relevance of any small bonds. Thus this metric needs to be front and center. Struggled with terminology here. Dont like “max payout” as it does not sound confidence inspiring. But have found no corresponding conventional term. “LOT” has traditionally been used to convey minimum size or quote relevant sizes. I think we could adopt that term as a preferred UI term over “maxPayout” or “capacity” . If product is sold out, exclude it from listing. Note that all products use OHM as reference for “Max Lot” regardless of principal. This allows the depositor to compare sizing across products.
Whenever OHM is referenced in the table, it is referenced as the original OHM. Keep it simple. All valuations, comparisons should happen using the main OHM token. This is of course equal to sOHM. The choice of whether to redeem as gOHM or sOHM is not needed at this stage. Minor precision loss in YTM from not using gOHM (staking yield not frozen) needs to be accepted out of convenience. When we say Principal = 1 OHM, this must represent the total value we can claim at the end of the duration. The bond purchase (v2) will provide the depositor with a certain amount of gOHM. At the the of the duration, these gOHM will be worth an ESTIMATED amount of common OHM. This is what the principal must represent – the estimated future OHM amount.
This is not how the current UI is showing discounts. Current UI shows only the discount/premium but excludes the staking effect. We need to instead show how much each product will have yielded at end of its period. This includes both staking and discount yields. Exception are serial bonds; since they do not autostake, we shall assume no staking at all for the purpose of illustration.
This is really another key point as it allows proper calculation of YTM, APR and APY. The current ROI is an inappropriate metric. The main purpose of ROI is to allow comparison of different investment choices, but in its current form it fails its purpose. YTM, APR, APY shall provide the proper baselines for comparisons.
Horizontal screen estate
If horizontal screen space is limited, then the YTM, APR, APY and Max Lot data could appear as a pop-up when hovering above a certain offering
PORTFOLIO / ASSET MANAGEMENT
This simple PORTFOLIO screen eliminates the Unstake, Claim/Redeem, Wrap and Bridge screens.
For the DDA product type, locked and maturity is always blank by nature of the staking product. The claim button consolidates into single word "claim" regardless if DDA (staking) or bond. Wrap/unwrap explains itself. The bridge link in left pane of current webpage is replaced by single action button here related to the gOHM token. <SELL> is an action button not yet in place - but once pull / pushNote comes into play maybe it becomes relevant. Any secondary market listed bonds could simply be added to the above marketplace structure as well. No new screen needed.
On almost every screen there is currently bloat. All data that is not necessary in the moment of decision needs to be pushed to the Dashboard or simply eliminated. Likewise, any ACTION related popup screen should only present core data - think of a swap transaction on Sushi. Its just amount, token, balance and slippage. Thats it. TVL / TBV / dollar amounts are all irrelevant here. But they are very informative as Dashboard data.
… Alright, thats it for now. Time for a snack and (3,3)