OIP-26: Move OHM-FRAX pool to Uniswap v3
So you checked projects like visor finance and it wasn't worth the risk?
I notice that the is a OHM-ETH pool on visor with:
TVL USD
$622,386.50
bubbidubb Well in this case, we'd be earning less fees, but we'd also get "free" (in terms of us not paying out incentives) liquidity. I think that's a good deal for us, as the payment to those liquidity providers could be considered a rev-share scheme.
However, keep in mind that there already is a pool on Uni v3 not controlled by us earning fees as you can see in the proposal, so what you're saying is already happening, just without us there.
This is a fantastic idea. Using V3, we can also layer several ranges of liquidity. For example considerable liquidity (something like ?%) from 25 to 1500, and then extra liquidity from more recent lows to highs 150 to 1000 (25%).
Barring major events, I don't see Ohm trading below 160 anytime soon.
I think this could be a good idea, but I'd like to understand the impacts of ending the "OHM-FRAX bond". I feel like ending the OHM-FRAX bond and migrating 50% of the OHM-FRAX pool to Arbitrum should be separate OIPs and can't be bundled together so people can vote with on single things rather than a bundle of things.
- Edited
bubbidubb I agree with this.
I think Arbitrum is super important for investors like me that can't afford the ETH gas like myself, but I also want to be sure that Arbitrum isn't putting liquidity at risk since it's relatively new.
I don't know enough about this, but before migrating too much liquidity into Arbitrum I think we should make sure the Arbitrum contracts and even the Olympus web app/source code get audited to make sure there is less risk.
SIDE NOTE: I strongly recommend we get OHM on defi insurance platforms: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/93-defi-insurance-offerings-for-ohm because even with audits and great coders there's always risk. Insurance doesn't stop hacks, but it protects funds which is the next best thing.
If folks are opposed to using one of those platforms we can also use something similar to AAVE's safety module which locks up staked funds to protect user funds in the event of an emergency https://docs.aave.com/aavenomics/safety-module.
i-feel-so-al-ohm They are separate options in the vote, so you don't have to vote for both. Olympus on Arbitrum already has a separate proposal where the pros and cons are discussed.
Graz likely one step at a time - this is the passive management option to get us going. I think the team will continue to look for active management strategies!
Good idea
shadow Ah I see but I thought you also wanted to “end OHM-FRAX bonds due to the complexity for users and inability of our Treasury to take in v3 LP tokens”
Which is why I was confused
i-feel-so-al-ohm OHM-FRAX bond capacity is low anyway. If we were to move to v3, we'd be better off ending them than looking for complex solutions that allow users to bond v3 positions. So if the community wants to go to v3, the OHM-FRAX bonds should be ended, no need to separate the two options.
shadow Got it that makes sense. I suppose as long it doesn't have a big effect it should be fine as you mentioned! Thanks for your replies!
- Edited
Small detail, how do we handle fees ? Do we have the multisig people reinvesting them periodically ?
I like the idea of moving to V3, not so much the idea of moving it to Arbitrum. Maybe we should see how the ETH-OHM pool we're going to do works out first.
- Edited
There are still many Uniswap v2 users that have not migrated to v3.
What about adding Uniswap v3 instead of moving everything from v2 to v3?
-UPDATE-
I get that the current DAO LP holdings on v2 are low, but the volume is still somewhat high (>$1 million the past 24 hours - 2% of daily volume, a not insignificant amount). I think continuing to support that volume benefits OHM price/value.
Now that we've won one of the tokemak reactor cores, this may be less of an issue.
We could open up a v3 position, and accelerate v3 adoption by directing liquidity there.