Why would we halt bonds? In the February treasury report page 8, we can read that Olympus generated 21M USD revenues. 92% of the revenues came from bonds. Why would we shut that down? If shutting down is the way forward - whats the purpose of Olympus at all?

The way I look for health in Olympus is to look at revenue generation and RFV growth. Stop that, and what core do we have left?

Key for Olympus must be to generate activity, and be able to hold on to some crumbs off that generated activity. Turning off bonds appears to work the opposite direction. I dont get it.

Also, inverse bonds wont generate any buy pressure. Do your simulations. The people who will gain most from using inverse bonds are the whales who already hold the most OHMs. (Unless the assets intended for inverse bonds are subprime ofc) If high-quality assets are inverse bonded, then thank you for the exit liquidity. Smells like rug.

I am sorry, please detail the mechanics that motivate this proposal better. I am not familiar with the inner working of policy, so I may be limited and wrong. But given my current understanding, this proposal puts the protocol in a not-good light.

As mcap/RFV is coming to a historical low, the risk-level should be equally low for an investor. This *should *be the the most opportune time to sell bonds ever. Policy team keeps selling these 2-day term bonds, which does not remove any supply from the market. And they are expensive due to gas fees that need to be paid over and over every 2 days. These gas fees are not paid by bond buyers as it may seem. They are paid by Treasury in terms of higher cost of capital. V1 had a lot of gas fees cuz of linear vesting. V2 has a lot of gas fees because of shorter duration. Staking rebases and super short bond terms furthermore keeps investors/traders alert with their trigger fingers. If you want to remove supply, then strangle the staking yield, and shift that near-term capital to more long term bonds. Longer terms equalize the game. More money for Olympus, less to ethereum miners.

    bubbidubb If there are no new investors, all reserve bonds will do is move assets from liquidity to reserves. Similarly, you might observe RFV growth if we’re only moving assets from liquidity to reserves because they’re marked down while in liquidity but not market down in reserves. If you look at liquid backing, there is no gain moving assets between liquidity and reserves.

    We can keep moving assets from liquidity to reserves to preserve their value but it would reduce price without new investors.

    I’m interested in your argument that whales will sell when inverse bonds are offered but wouldn’t sell now. Why take a 25% hit now to save 2% slippage then? Whales stand to gain the most by inverse bonding then using that money to buy more OHM. I’d be interested in seeing what assumptions your simulation makes.

        Rasuki if we peg anything, we have no revenue from bonding. The meme 1 OHM = 1 DAI is profitable for the treasury.

        if we peg price to MV backing, we’re losing money - it’s just straight up spend and Olympus mechanisms are voided

          pottedmeat

          I cant follow that stuff with shifting from liquidity to reserves from where I am sitting. Are you saying that bonds do no good?

              bubbidubb Bonds are awesome but we need to have an inflow of demand before we can use them to pull more funds into the treasury.

                  bubbidubb actually you can't see any growth with treasury.

                  1. when people using LP tokens to buy OHM bonds, actually treasury is accepting half value from LP tokens(50%=OHM) and giving users OHM with a positive premium. It doesn't matter how long the vest period of Bond, users need to take profit by selling all OHM which they purchased
                  2. and when users selling ohm, actually they are taking ETH or DAI away from treasury because of the POL. Treasury losing values, and who staked in stake(3,3) is suffering dilution. I even have no idea who benefits from these?

                    pottedmeat

                    IB is a differerent topic. But briefly. Assume a rational economic agent owns 10,000 OHM (player 1). The IB bond using price decay mechanism, will enter his optical sight earlier than it does for somebody (player 2) who owns 0 OHM because player 1 has no cost of acquisition. Being rational, player 1 must snipe once the bond is in sight. He takes the shot, realizes yield and price resets the IB back to unprofitable territory. Player 1 now owns 9,800 OHM and is forced to continue to snipe at the IB as long as he has any OHM left in wallet. The IB never enters the optical sight of player 2. By extension (assuming efficiency), all IB's must be sniped using OHM's already held in inventory; no IB will be bought by player 2 types. This will burn market cap (need new narrative). Value of backing will also be burned from several sides. RFV/unit maybe can go up. But thats a complex narrative. Optics of public charts will point down.

                        bubbidubb So your assumption here is that this whale is looking to offload all of their OHM at the "soft floor" imposed by inverse bonding, rather than selling today or last week or last month at a higher price?

                            dodecahedron

                            It does not have to be malicious. Its just quite the rational thing to do. If somebody wants to buy my asset for more than its worth, then how can I say no?

                                In theory agree. Would love to see what thresholds trigger this, and if the emissions changes are immediate or staggered over weeks.

                                A clear plan on when this stops would also help. We dont quite know the IB capacities and those may change as they are launched. Hoping we dont get stuck in a low emission, IB yield realisation cycle, which would be the opposite of a flywheel effect we are looking for.

                                A rational player that holds OHM has much more interest in selling for IBs with their yields from OHM than introducing new demand. This can be a positive thing, but is a fine line that needs to be constantly monitored. Their cost of acquisition is 0 and reduced emissions and supply burnt means the risk of losing marketcap is lower.

                                Example:
                                We currently hold over 5000 OHM and are acquiring more each day. If an IB is opened up, is much more profitable for us to sell its yields into this and snipe this bond before anyone else. We have now realised our yield into a profitable asset (stables, btc, eth) and will simply just wait for emissions to go up again. We remain hedged on yields with guaranteed exit liquidity via IB and can still capture the upside with that yield revenue when price is stable. Our original position is intact, and we are not losing out massively on marketcap either, since the supply is being burnt and emissions are now reduced.

                                In our case, and I would assume anyone else that is trying to capture the maximum amount of OHM over a longer run, this is the most profitable way to do this.

                                  bubbidubb

                                  "If somebody wants to buy my asset for more than it's worth, then how can I say no?"

                                  This ^

                                  Especially if you have the DAI to instant arbitrage rather than waiting for the IB to mature and hoping the price doesn't move. Slightly off topic. Just excited for IB.

                                  I support OIP-85 and really anything that reduces dilution.

                                    electo

                                    When no bonds are offered/bought, there are no OHM mints as a result of bonds, no OHM mints to bonders means no dilution to holders, therefor no OHM emissions are needed to holders to cover dilution from bonds since no dilution is occurring from bonds.

                                    Idea is to set emission to the minimum of our current emissions tier which would not conflict with OIP 18. Soon as reserve bonds would be re-activated, emissions (APY) would increase in order to proportionately cover the OHM that is minted to bonders.

                                    Next when IB are available, no OHM is minted via them, on the contrary OHM will be burnt via them, same thing no OHM emissions needed to cover dilution since no OHM is being minted to IB bonders.

                                    When we are not taking in reserve bonds and we are emitting OHM we are just breaking up the same cookie into smaller pieces, rather than adding cookies to the jar - in respect to backing/ohm.

                                    I don't think Policy intend to issue any more reserve bonds until we get back above backing/ohm and definitely they will not be issuing reserve bonds when we will be trading below liquid backing, at bottom of current emission's tier (0.1186%) our backing/ohm will be eroding by that 0.1186% every rebase as no revenue will be coming in.

                                    So to attempt to answer your concern from my view point, I would envision OHM emissions to adjust quite reactively, not ramp up/down over weeks, more so adjust in relation to reserve bonds that are sold and OHM that is minted via them - as an anti-dilution hedge to holders.

                                    High "fixed/predictable" APY was our focal marketing point more so, unfortunately, than ohm’s main objective of being a reserve currency to the greater market (what i mean is a vast number of investors came for the APY not for the reserve currency vision).

                                    At this point our main focus should be to get the past 4 months constant sell pressure under control, stabilize price and get it trending in the other direction. That is the needed foundation for us to build back from and attract fresh capital. No better marketing then price go up or at least price no go down every day would be a good start.

                                    We’d still be getting some 400-500% apy - while reseve bonds inactive + while IB active. Road to recovery and to regain market confidence could take a couple months. We need to assert and validate the fundamental that our liquid backing = soft floor defended by ohmies with the support of the treasury. To prove itself to the market in order for new investors to come around.

                                    I understand your point how do we get out of bottom of current emissions tier & inverse bond territory? the way i see it is our liquid backing/ohm will increase after each inverse bond (more than emissions will chip away at our backing/ohm), which will act as a rising floor until ohm can fly on its own again.

                                    If the market sees that the downside is limited and upside is in steady growth mode, fresh capital will come back in, but that will not happen overnight.

                                        electo how much of a difference does lowering reward rate make to this though process? Isn't this more of a comment on how inverse bond "capacities" themselves need to be monitored and carefully tuned so they aren't something that are guaranteed and rather something that are competitive enough that players can't take the presence of useful inverse bonds forgranted (as in, there would be enough competition that you can't be sure someone else won't snipe before you do).

                                            z_33
                                            For a yield farmer, anything above $0 is a profitable snipe. They can sell at slight loss on each rebase as their initial investment going down in price is offset by the yields. Especially true for bigger players since they capture a bigger part of the yield.

                                            Dom98000

                                            I agree with points you guys make. Also ~500% is a good emission rate.

                                            Its a fine line and some thresholds should be defined. Keep in mind IB drains the treasury of assets. Backing is going up, rfv may be going up, but the progress we made in the expansion phase of growing the treasury is now working in reverse. We are hoping for demand to come back and market to act rationally. This is hope, not measurable or guaranteed.

                                            The demand is a function of the market. The markets can remain irrational longer than we can imagine. The price of OHM is not down right now because of demand. The overall market is down because of demand, and OHM is no exception. Since OHM is not a stable coin, its price is measured in multiples (premium) over its RFV & backing. In a stressed bear market, this price can fall below RFV and stay there for a long period of time.

                                            Demand is irrational, it does not strictly follow the floor pricing. This is known now because we saw people buying at a 10x+ premium and people selling below backing. I 100% agree the floor rising will stem the outflows and provide some support for longer time frame investors.

                                            Suggestion:
                                            Reduce reward rate to 0.11 and forget about it until we see price at 1.5x premium or something defined by policy. (Not actively managed)

                                            Add more bonds for premium stressed assets (BTC, ETH), they are also extremely liquid and help raise backing when market picks up. I am more inclined to sell my BTC into OHM via a bond than I am using stables.

                                            Keep reserve bonds off until we are back above backing (total). With the BTC and ETH bonded in, this backing will go up very fast as overall market sentiment picks up.

                                            Do not invoke IB unless we fall below RFV - this is a hard metric and easy to follow along. The liquid backing includes stressed assets which bonded out of the system during downturns is like selling the bottom.

                                            Find a way to sell / realise the assets we acquire from partners as revenue into Stables or premium assets. This is our true demand, and this is still relatively high with no way of realising this into protocol growth. Olympus holding x coin of partner when they launched olympus pro bonds makes no sense. The pro fees should be realised into a core treasury asset at the time of bond sale. (stable, btc, eth). This can also be a mix e.g. sell half, keep half.

                                            Remove all assets from total backing which cannot be realised or sold.

                                                  pottedmeat With what i understand, bonds are way to build the treasure by locking in stables. Incentive for locking the stables is the emissions. With no bonds i feel the treasury is impacted a very big way.

                                                  Why no bonds is still something not good to me. Earlier there used to so many pairs which could be bonded. Right after the V2 upgrade bonding capacities disappeared.

                                                  With no provision to bond how can we know if there is demand for bonds. With Olympus Pro people are bonding. Infact the bonding capacity is continuing to increase. Based on the growth exhibited by Olympus Pro, i feel demand for bonds are still there and i fell we are missing out on it.

                                                  If bonds are not used then what will bring value to the treasury similar to the way bonds could do. I dont know if there are other ways already present in the protocol. If it there please point me towards it.

                                                  My intention is not to say something is wrong with the protocol. I am trying to convey my point that something needs to be done very quickly to bring value into the treasury.

                                                    electo Yes Eth is 47% down from its high. wbtc is 42% from its high. If bonds were there they could see it is a benefit and start to hold. for the protocol, it is way to get the treasury back up. So please consider brining in the bonds.

                                                      I get it if rebase rewards need to be lowered, but what I don't get is bond needs to be paused. Our protocol revenue mostly came from bonds and if we pause it, won't we lose our main source of revenue? and it will create the liquid backing lowered much more with still having to reward the stakers?

                                                      My point of view is I don't mind if rebase rewards are paused if we can maintain or increase the liquid backing of OHM or we could find another way to reward holders, such as distributing a portion of farming rewards, etc. with lower APY and healthy for the protocol. I just can see how can we maintain liquid backing with pausing our main source of revenue.

                                                      Cheers.

                                                        asincuka

                                                        $ Backing per ohm is decreasing because OHM emission > then $ treasury revenue

                                                        For backing per ohm to stay fixed you would need ohm emissions = to treasury revenue

                                                        If you want backing per ohm to to grow you need OHM emissions < then treasury revenue

                                                        Currently as treasury reserve bonds are paused

                                                        We have emissions and zero treasury revenue from bonds.

                                                        Therefor $ backing/ohm is going down. Because we are breaking up the cookie into smaller pieces, without adding cookies to the jar.

                                                        Fixes are to

                                                        1. deploy treasury assets and have them generate treasury revenue (being worked on)

                                                        2. reduce emissions as much a possible when treasury bonds are paused

                                                        Check out unbanksy’s thread

                                                        https://twitter.com/unbanksyeth/status/1503635877905387520?s=21

                                                        Policy is currently favoriting LP bonds in order to reduce sell pressure

                                                            Dom98000

                                                            I understand the logic behind we need to get into OHM emissions < then treasury revenue

                                                            Liquid backing = Olympus treasury / Ohm circ. supply
                                                            On the denominator, we should push the rebase rewards into a healthy range that can be afforded without creating downward pressure on price (and I vote yes on this props for this one)

                                                            But for pausing the reserve bond is what I'm questioning, do we have data on LP bonds create less selling pressure than reserve? compared to we can deploy the reserve asset for generating revenue, also don't we already have enough LP compared to our MC and the volume is stagnant.

                                                            Thanks for helping me to understand.

                                                              Support and am voting in favor of. I would take it a step further and say that we need to reduce emissions such that RFV per OHM can only ever increase or stay stable, even if it means taking a hit to revenue. I also think we need to look into building more liquidity in token pairs that don't include OHM as one of the tokens, if there's one issue OHM doesn't have its lack of liquidity. But for now I think this is a good step, thanks policy team.