I would ask many of the same questions, what I like so far is it introduces longer term staking essentially through long expiration dates. I don't mind simple staking that you can enter and exit with minimal friction as a "base rate", its already the case that its a base rate compared to say depositing gOHM into an SSOV on Dopex or in Jones DAO.
Exploring a Bond-Centric Future
- Edited
biscuit well biscuit … with the vesting V2 (4,4) bonds.. assuming you're 3,3 and have the time / means to sell and snipe bonds.. you'd want to bond everytime the margin is > than the friction to sell and rebond right?
This to me finally delivers on a pseudo locked stake type mechanism for those longterm 3,3 ers giving them a straightforward enough means to gain share.. and compete with bondors as they exist today.. and cuts the sell pressure out of the equation while doing it
I'd see myself cutting my bag up into 3 sets of rolling 90 day expiring bonds… or eventually to a vault partner to manage such a strategy
Who wants to join my Treasury Cabal?
Churchee agree with you and @ptp1600 . Long dated bonds in theory become the optimal play for those with a long-term outlook, but then you are taking on interest risks, which current staking does not have due to liquidity. I guess it shifts the types of participants a bit towards more sophisticated and full time traders rather than just casual retail. That should bring in more and bigger players, leading to higher volume, deeper liquidity, and more products around the ecosystem…. All that is to say I think I am beginning to see the vision.
Dopex or Jones DAO then becomes more vital for those retail players that want to set it and forget it with a high conviction play on the long-term success of Olympus.
Is there any intention or possibility of adding a coupon rate to the internal bonds down the line if we move in this direction?
This in effect will force more people to lock up ohm to search for higher yields causing a supply shock in addition to lowered emissions for single staking causing upwards pressure on ohm price.. am I'm on the right track??
How would this new model effect staking? Would it still even exist? Speaking as someone who has only ever 3,3.
Zeus twelve to eighteen months
Where are my sol. hoomans @?
Sadinoel where do i sign?
CosmicRadii from what i understand staking will still be available but it just wouldnt be the exorbitant triple digit percentages. if you want to receive those rewards you have to take the risk of being illiquid for a certain amount of time.
Zeus sure - so far all our bonds have been 0% coupon rate - you get the discount you agreed upon at purchase upon term expiration plus auto staking rewards in the interim (but I don’t THINK those are analogous to coupon payments) If we shift to a model with longer dated bonds, one way to dampen interest rate risk is to purchase a bond that pays out some “cash flow”(OHM) along the way. Sorry if I missed any details explaining such a mechanism in the paper.
ser,so the internal bond's yield comes from where? Are these yeild come from the total token emmissions which means the emmissions for staking will be less?
Is this similar to what Fantohm just implemented with $Fhud?
I've been waiting for a bond market to emerge on top of olympus to confirm the success of the project. If we're getting mature enough to play these games, I can only support pursuing the reflexion around this!
Just for my smol brain, no rebase on these bonds right? can you remind me what is PID?
How would we decide the different epochs length? Would it be dynamic or fixed?
biscuit yeah it certainly has legs, the issue ive run into is how to do so in a way that is composable, trustless, and gas efficient (i.e. does the token have to rebase down after a coupon payment, are you doing snapshots to determine who receives the interest (and if so who's executing that snapshot), etc). I definitely see the benefits and maybe this is something we should explore more. I bet there's an implementation out there; but if not, I do skew toward composability personally.
Ohm is my biggest holding. The ethos and team are the best I've experienced in crypto. As a simple investor there is comfort in just sitting on my gOHM and letting it grow at a fixed and generous rate.
If staking rewards were still incorporated to a degree and/or locking gOHM for a known fixed return was offered -this could provide some 'certainty' in this new and expanded bond marketplace.
But I know crypto is rarely certain.
- Edited
I really like the bond vaults / erc-20 dynamic introduced here. That does make bonds and yields more accessible and more liquid.
I’m also really happy to see the DAO improve sustainable APY and incentivize long duration staking (via internal bonds).
I recently authored a mega thread on Twitter about OHM and KLIMA that proposes a different approach with a ton of overlap to this. Each has pros and cons, and this seems to check off the changes to bonds and staking that I outlined.
Idk if I can link but I’ll try, and fyi the thread was for KLIMA and OHM both, and generalized to all POLs.
OHM is the OG POL, so I name dropped it a lot. KLIMA has a bit more focus on post since OHM has more in the works already.
https://twitter.com/Chees_eth/status/1492267892213174278?s=20&t=mlz_orRu5u5jRjQolowpVA
Full disclosure, I have more reading to do about the OHM dynamics proposed above (by Zeus). I do follow the outline, and I’m a wiz a math. I did not get to linked technicals yet, but I will soon.
Off the cuff I think that locked staking (described in my post) would more effectively remove OHM from circulation than what I see above.
From what I see above, bond tokens will be liquid even before maturity. If bond tokens are liquid, then interest is partially realized in real time and selling is easy.
(I like liquid bond tokens but…)
These alone leaves the premium dynamic (as described in my post) unchanged. [Although, increasing sustainable yield would help alleviate that some, as it would represent an increase in RFAPY (in my post)].
As long as Stake APY >> RFAPY, RFV is diluted over time. Therefore Prem* (defined in post) is still under pressure.
As it stands, (and perhaps I have more reading to do) Internal Bond Tokens will be liquid. and Prem* & (therefore price) will be subject to market whims. RFV will still dilute, and Prem will still decrease (after a likely spike from new protocol). Feedback ensues until Prem approaches (1 + new higher RFAPY). I would love to see a solution that fixes this and breaks the cycle.
So, that leaves us in a jam. I like liquid bond tokens and “internal bonds” but they do not solve the current problem (as I see it and as outline in my post).
Would auto-staking and locked staking (as described in my post) fix this?
Genuinely asking, idk.
IMO we must incentivize long duration staking / holding in an illiquid fashion, but that’s IMO. So is this: Fully bringing APY and RFAPY into sync will require something that cannot be sold on a whim.
I think that illiquid long staked OHM would solve the problem with premium, and bring stability to prices as well.
Moreover, It would also reward the most ardent (3,3) believers regardless of what price the buy at, which seems fair (see “mid-wave” buyer notes on Twitter).
Any such locking mechanism would have to be funded by rev alloc and voted on by DAO, of course. Therefore it’s not really “monetary policy” in the old sense, or at least it’s enacted by vote.
If locked staking (as is described it) is unappealing, is there any alternative?
The goal IMO is to incentive longer duration staking (and take OHM out of circulation for a set duration).
How besides locked stakes can we incentive long dur holding (vs shorter dur) and stabilize price (assuming as I do that price = [RFV] x [RFVAPY + Prem*]).
Can we do something to minimize volatility of Prem*, if not also incentivize long dur stake?
Conclusion:
That’s all food for thought, but regardless the plan as stated above seems like a good step in the right direction.
It does at least allow for duration, and IMO that is the most key thing (for OHM right now).
Liquid bond tokens are also pretty neat. They would allow the market to set they APY for a maturity date in real time, and they’d remove the bot problem.
The key will be solving the Premium dilemma going forward. I do not see a solution to that in the changes outlined, but I’ll see if I missed anything in the docs.
We’re all still growing and learning on the journey, and I welcome constructive feedback
The Olympus Lookout dashboard https://dune.xyz/fluidsonic/Olympus-DAO projected that we'll be in +/- 428% APY territory by May 2022. I'm wondering what range of Bond APY can we expect with this proposed idea?