Draft OIP-28 - Pilot Deposit into Gro Protocol

Thanks for sharing. But $500K DAI is too much for this new protocol. Let’s start with$ 100K for now. Also it will be good to increase our FRAX position in Convex.

Joyce I think a better way of looking at this proposal, and to evaluate what your asking, is to look at current stablecoin allocations for the Treasury. Current we have:

1m DAI in Aave - Aave has $14 billion TVL

330k FRAX in Convex - Convex has $8 billion TVL

You're asking for 500k DAI - Your TVL is $10 million

So yes it might only be 1.5% of Olympus' DAI but it would be a significant allocation from the treasury compared to existing positions. Also I think the "minimizing risks" is a bit of a red herring since your protocol is not battle-tested yet while Aave and Convex have a long history already (in DeFi terms obviously) - so you could argue that your protocol has a higher risk profile than Aave and Convex regardless of your asset strategies.

Again, I'm not saying I'm against depositing DAI in Gro but considering the above I think 100k DAI should be the max allocation for now until Gro is more battle-tested.

I agree in principle with this proposal.

Most of the disagreement comes from newness of the protocol and the size in relation to cvx and aave - but the answer to this should surely be to increase our allocation to those other yield strategies because by now they represent a small % of the treasury. As for the security, it is a risk. So maybe 100k for Gro initially and increasing the AAVE and CVX strats by 2-3x would be the right balance at this time.

As 0xFelix pointed out, its not low risk, i think we should start with 100k

+1 towards doing this at $100K.

$100k allocation seems more appropriate given the circumstances.

Despite the audit, a valid low IQ argument is that smart contract risk is always higher with low TVL products--they're not big enough to catch an exploiter's attention yet.

No reason for Olympus to stick its neck out like this for low yield imo, the ask is too high at $500k.

Personally agree with the sentiment shared by others. I would be in favor of depositing a lower amount while building the relationship with GRO. We could always revisit in some time when their TVL grows and we have a bit more confidence in their contracts.

heya! We'd love to be grohmies :-) Whether starting with 100k or 500k, we're here to build an enduring relationship and collaboration. I think it's a fair point around multiple audits and risk tranching protection only going so far - ultimately a protocol needs to endure with significant funds to prove it has resisted real hack attempts.

There's an interesting bigger conversation around treasury management which would be great to engage in and something that we think about for our own treasury, and not just as builders of a product that offers leverage and protection.

In addition to what others have pointed out about 500k DAI being too high of an allocation. In my view this proposal goes directly against OIP-20. OIP-20 clearly says that the excess DAI will be allocated in pre-approved protocols. AFAIK the community has not voted to whitelist Gro. Here's the relevant statement from OIP-20.

"The proposal laid out below is to give the DAO the mandate to allocate up to 33% of excess reserves into whitelisted protocols approved by the community (currently Aave, Convex, and Sushiswap)."

personally would like to first see a whitelist vote for Gro which includes a risk-assessment analysis and then would consider voting on the amount to be allocated if the whitelist vote passes. Yes, it'll slow things down, but in my view we shouldn't be in a rush about this.

Given the above concerns, I'm voting No.

Joyce The total yield will include token incentives once our Gro DAO token launch (via an LBP) is completed this month, at which point we will be able to start rewarding liquidity providers - including our treasury customers!

This one pretty juicy opportunity on top stable yields with risk tranching from Gro

500k is far too high….and we should not be exposed to USDT at all. its a ticking time bomb.

I'm interested in any insured yield options.

collinm11

I fully agree with this point. USDT has had its risk heavily scrutinized and researched. USDT should get removed from any stablecoin risk-distribution bucket.

Tether Ltd. (i.e., the Bitfinex owners) could be labeled as "scammy" to say the least. I thought one problem defi meant to solve was legacy, centralized organizations that historically scammed their users (e.g., MtGox, BTC-e, and BitFinex).

I personally was burned by a BitFinex "hack" resulting in the owners sweeping 30% of my funds without recourse or approval. USDT is owned by the same people. It's part of that same early scam culture that dominate the cryptocurrency / crytpoasset space.

@Charlie-Gro While I hold a big bag of staked GRO and participated in your release on Copper, you really should move away from USDT if you want to imbue any sense of safety, security, or legitimacy. Otherwise people like me will dump at the pump of the next major bull leg and not buy back again.

Charlie-Gro

Stop supporting USDT.