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.

              Dom98000 Keeping emissions equal or slightly(may be 90%) than treasury revenue will be ideal. But how much are the treasury earning per day or per rebase(I dont know where to find out. Please share me the link if its available).

              Having said that are we making enough is the big question. If the revenue made is less and the APY is kept to absolute minimum, then what is the benefit for some one who has staked their value. So making more revenue is more important for now.

              Stopping the major source of revenue is a big mistake. Till now i have not got a good reply from the protocol. Pointing some twitter link makes this all the more questionable. Why cant there be a official documentation with regards to it.

              When the reserve bonds were there, with a certain discount on the bonds, there was a possibility of a bottom and market conditions reversed the sell pressure was offset. Sell pressure was created due to a lot of 9,9 ers only is what i understand. At this current point in time, how many 9,9 ers are there is impossible to find. If we can have a solution to manage 9,9 ers sell pressure then we are good.

              All in all Bonding at all capacity has to be back, so that revenue is back up is what i feel. Bonding is the USP of olympus and we should not go out of it.

                My 2cents:

                Investors feels that the current APY is not high enough for them to stay staked especially price going down. Therefore, it makes no sense to continue to keep this APY. We should discuss to find an appropriate mechanism. Its either:

                1. No emission when RFV per ohm is decreasing (hat the tip to ProofofSteveGM)

                2. Introduce lock staking to reward highest APY for stakers staying long term, lowest for speculate/short term investors. The current system is obviously unfair for long term investors.

                At the same time, realize full/half of the Oly Pro bond fees (hat the tip to electo) if not at least put those tokens staked or max lock staked (for example $MAGIC). Its painful to watch the treasury with a lot of tokens that staying unstaked or earn no yield.

                I know that lock staking has been discussed and voted no in the past. However, given the overall market trending down together of the ohm price keeps decreasing, I feel that this matter should be discussed again because I feel that the highest reward should be given to those that most loyal to the protocol. We can't keep giving out the same reward for those who has just staked versus those who has been staking since launch.

                Sorry for my English.

                bubbidubb sorry I'm late to this, but I was wondering:

                per example of OIP-76 (IB), the bond will never offer a price above the liquidity backing per unit.

                Based on that and assuming all external markets remain stable, every time player1 engages IB, it slightly raises the liquidity backing. Player1 gets a portion of the treasury, but its value would be slightly less than the OHM he paid for (valued by liquidity backing). He probably wouldn't keep doing this unless he's somehow incentivized, say anticipating a change in the external market? but even that would be unlikely to persist

                    detoo I think the way Ib works is, it will allow people to give up their ohm in exchange for DAI that is higher than market price, then these ohm will be burnt hence increase backing. Not everyone can do that but only a handfull people that quick enough can get in. The way I see it can be profitable business is, use Dai to buy ohm when price below liquid backing then bond, repeats the process if ohm market price still below the backing price. This will push the price up. Remember, this arbitrage will not only beneficial for them but also benefit for protocol since the protocol buys ohm below liquid backing. In this case, only people that sells below liquid backing price is lost.

                      Write a Reply...