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...