The underlying point of the Ice's thread was the way Ribbon's UI is inherently and purposefully misleading, and this speaks broadly to their credibility. Their "sticker" APY Ribbon advertises is essentially a projection of a projection - if the options we sold expire out of the money this week, and if the premium/TVL ratio remains stable for a year, here's the APY.

If you're going to criticize Ice for showing the return denominated in USD in his initial tweet, you should also be criticizing Ribbon for not specifying in their UI that the sticker APY they show is denominated in the deposited asset (this also, of course, is intentional). You have to dig to find their historical performance; we lead with historical performance. The idea that yield on selling weekly calls as tight to the money as they do is "sustainable," which is bolded on their landing page, is also sketchy.

Jones max risk is tight, compared to Ribbon's theoretical 100%, and the composable yield through jAssets is a substantial boost to yield. Ribbon's "structured products" are so basic and risky because they don't actually have a quant team built to design anything more complex.

See here, ad for "head of trading" whose responsibilities will include building that team. Also worth noting that anyone involved in finance will recognize that the salary is peanuts for someone who is going to be responsible for handling 300mm AUM, building a trading team, and then managing that team: https://angel.co/company/ribbon-finance/jobs/2019377-head-of-trading

For non-finance natives, the salary is roughly between what a 25 year old 2-3 years into an investment banking career earns for PowerPointing and doing basic financial modeling.

If the intent is to make directional bets on the market with a specific time horizon and thesis, Ribbon's vaults are a viable avenue for that. If the intent is to drop some ETH and wBTC in and let it ride indefinitely, that may not yield the desired results.

    Atlas-

    I'm only going to comment on the last paragraph. Read through the linked risk analysis in the proposal, and you'll see we're considering Ribbon Treasury which allows for much more custom strategies than the standard vaults.

      I also think that since September, many of these DOV protocols have considerably changed their operating model. Their put/call strikes selection has drastically improved over time.

      If it was not already done by the treasury team, I think that an assessment of other DOV protocols should be added, so that we choose the best suited for us in terms of risk/returns.

      Totally in favour, I have personally been using Ribbon's vault for quite some time and I found that APY display in the UI are in line with actual realised returns. Not sure why so much hate from IceCream… Peace ✌

      I don't think whitelisting Ribbon is a great idea. Their automated strategies have and will statistically get blown up over time.
      IceCream's points are absolutely valid and I don't see them as cherry picking.
      The proposal talks about using ribbon to increase OHM backing which means profit is calculated in USD terms.
      Although past performance is not indicative of future one, we can clearly see using Ribbon's vaults has not been a great strategy since the protocol's existence.

      It's pointless to argue about past performance and cherry picking data.
      The main point is: Ribbon's strategies favour market makers and not the vault users.

        0xbetty

        Welcome to the forum. ETH backs OHM too so it's fine to calculate profit in ETH terms.

          forgive me I am not options expert, so read my statements as questions ..

          Partaking in Ribbon is on one hand like buying a product, and on one hand selling volatility.
          Ribbon is pricing the options with Black & Scholes.. so they will be priced to perfection…
          Of course, crypto is known for tail risk or super high volatility. I got my own BTFD's set at daily 20-30% swings by the way for BTC and ETH … And that hits now and then. Not sure what swings like that do to volatility sellers…
          But lets assume the options are priced to perfection and take these blowout swings into account… (olympus will be an eternal volatility seller, so would ofc get wiped eventually ? ) … In regular markets, there is a bit of commission on options. In the case of Ribbon, since Olympus is buying a product and not really selling the options (but taking the full risk of it) there is an annual fee of 2% on capital deployed plus 10% fee on weekly performance gain. If B&S is normally pricing to perfection - does the added 2/10 fees still allow for sufficiently attractive risk/reward for Olympus? I mean, in traditional markets is this kind of commission really competitive?

          Selling options is like being the bank. Selling options is like the green 0 in roulette. Like odds should be stacked to our favor. But buying this product does not put Oly in that position. Ribbon remains the bank. And their RBN token price is stable at 50MUSD since November. If this concept is really good.. Would it not be more attractive to buy RBN token itself instead, and actually be the bank who owns the green 0 ?

          Since nobody answer my above concerns and the vote is in a few hours; I must assume this proposal is unprofitable to Olympus and would be another bleed point for Olympus added on top of all our other bleed points.

          1. The 2% annual, 10% weekly performance fee skews risk/reward to where it is not a justifiable investment.
          2. The operator takes a 10% perf cut weekly because they know it would not be profitable to apply it annually.
          3. Crypto is extremely volatile. This kind of investment cannot be judged based on some months historical APY. Go back 12-24 months and see what volatility situations occurred and how that would have impacted APY.

          Its a no from me. I hope it does not pass. Olympus in general really need to stop bleeding.

          • json replied to this.

            bubbidubb

            Thanks for your questions. Owning RBN is not profitable directly for Olympus unlike more ETH, wBTC or stables. Governance tokens do not help any current initiatives. It is more beneficial for tangible backing with tokens that retain true value.

            1. There will be performance fees for all managed investment opportunities, that's just the industry.
            2. Same as above.
            3. Yes, that's why it's imperative to minimize risk and to allocate when it makes sense. This has been laid out in the treasury framework. A lot of your comments are contradictory to it so I would suggest to check it out!

            It is also important to note the opportunity costs of partnerships and integrations, I don't think you're factoring it in this at all.

            Also, overall the treasury has been bringing in 10s of millions in revenue a month so I am unsure what you mean by bleeding in general.

                json

                1. Yes. I think this industry's fee level makes it unjustifiable to white-list participation in any such protocol.

                2.
                - May 19, 2021: ETH OHLC = 3377/3444/1860/2443 … a daily swing of 54%
                - Aug 31, 2021: ETH Open @ 3229 modest rip to 4030 … a modest 4-day rise of 25%
                - Dec 3, 2021: ETH 2-day swing of 25%
                How would Olympus option position fare on days like these?

                  With the poll ending in favor, 71%/29%. Is it aa simple as that, or is that one piece that's factored when deciding whether to whitelist ribbon?

                  I'm a long time user of ribbon theta vault, deposited my first 1.5 ETH a year ago, then I've added another 4 ETH eight months ago and my current holding is almost 6.2 ETH … so Idk how you guys got it's not profitable…

                  Write a Reply...