1. definition of liquidity
  2. liquidity vs ubiquity
  3. uniswap v2 legacy tech
  4. implementation
  5. utilities

Definition and measure of liquidity
Liquidity refers to the ease with which an asset, or security, can be converted into ready cash without affecting its market price. The key in this definition of liquidity should be "without affecting its price". Liquidity should not be defined as "TVL in v2 pools" divided by treasury. Rather it should be referred to as "how big transaction do we want to be able to process while containing price slippage to less than 0.1 % ?"
Only legacy uniswap v2 technology is restricted to a linear relationship. v3 as you know has multiples higher efficiency, so we need to separate the liquidity concept from the mental trap of linear xyk pools.

Liquidity vs ubiquity
Another distinction is to separate liquidity (price slippage) from ubiquity (presence in every nook and cranny). While the first allows one to trade in and out without penalty, the second serves to hopefully see somebody hodl the token for sustained time (remove supply). Ubiquity should not be a goal in itself - slippage and supply removal is.

Implementation
While I see bleed in the Treasury's own LP positions, I do not see why the same must be a problem for 3rd party liquidity providers. Anyone that wants to avoid the dilution of holding OHM in an LP, could simply chose to use gOHM instead of OHM. So why are we adding complexities to solve a problem that is already solved by using gOHM as the pairing token?

v2 legacy tech
This proposal builds upon uniswaps v2 xyk logic, right? Why would Olympus marry itself to legacy logic? I fear this is a technology trap where Olympus deploys logic that builds on somebody else's old, inefficient v2 technology instead of looking forward and really maximizing the potential of v3 or possibly in-house AMM technologies.

Utility
a) Incentivizing others to provide liquidity works to weaken the pooper2 paper. Walls are walls only when Olympus has monopoly on liquidity. The more distributed ownership of liquidity, the more porous the pooper2 walls will be.
b) Promoting 3rd parties to participate in 3rd party AMM's promotes and strengthens 3rd party AMM's ecosystems. It does not strengthen so much Olympus ecosystem.
c) In my vision, Olympus does a 100x better job at marketing and delivering its own products than currently. In my vision, people visit app.olympus.finance to access liquidity, to buy and sell OHM - they dont visit 3rd party AMM's. While visiting olympus.finance they discover they can price time through discounts and premiums through bonding. While visiting olympus.finance they discover Pro opportunities and snap up some partner tokens. By visiting olympus.finance they find a dynamic marketplace - worth revisiting on daily basis to look for opportunities. By creating this interest and traffic, partners are increasingly interested to join and build on Olympus ecosystem.

    As has been mentioned already, some added clarification on the voting choices I feel is needed. "No change to reward rate" COULD be understood to mean that the APY will not change from its current range level. "Change to reward rate" COULD be understood to mean that the current APY will change and drop from its current range level. It's imperative that each choice is fully understood.

    I speak on behalf of myself, an ohmie currently 85%+ percent down and came around November time. Personally the current reward rate projection is one of the things that keeps me going when the price of OHM is down. I would rather change the reward rate than no change.

    Also for the long picture, if OHM is to be a reserve currency but also a very 3% to 6% for the institutions that would rather play save with their fund and (stake or bond) seems attractive proposition. 2% to 4% seems rather low. But then again what will happen to fiat currency at that point, we don't know till we travel there.

    I guess I probably would be enticed by "no change" if we were in our bond centric future and ability to get more yield was an option.

    Zeus The way the choices are expressed confused me. you say "Implementing this with no change to the reward rate will result in lower emissions in staking". But then no change is in the same 470% region. I voted 'with change' hoping to achieve the end result of keeping emissions the same. But in reality this option was 'no change'.

    • json replied to this.

      Re: reward rate change. I am thinking it would be more beneficial to maintain the current APY (increase reward rate) for two reasons:

      1. perception- yes Olympus will be defending with the treasury but the decrease in APY at the same time may create the appearance of unsustainability.

      2. We need to keep increasing supply. There's only like 17million OHM. Reducing emissions again so early seems counterproductive over the long-term.

      I feel the safest choice is implement with increased reward rate. If we find that this rate of emissions is impeding the progress of OIP-93, a reward rate reduction OIP can be proposed to adjust.

        asho There is no change because a portion of the rewards will go to LPs as opposed to only stakers.

        I think people might not be understanding the reward rate change consideration. If we don’t change it, emissions rewards go down.

        Zeus

        LP to MCap will increase over time as M&S weights price lower and increases LP.

        What is M&S, and did you mean LP to Treasury ratio here?

        Also, will people staked into LP positions count towards the expansion amounts? I.e. if a user sections off their ohm to the LP, will they forego the proportional supply expansion they would have compounded otherwise. An example would be if person A and B both have 1 ohm. supply expands and person A delegates to LP while person B keeps it in ohm. Next supply expansion, will person A and B receive the same amount?

        • Zeus replied to this.

          json Ah fair, so less emissions and less dilution as the LP OHM is initially unstaked (until purchased and staked). Am I getting that right? The math sounds tricky there so maybe I'm way oversimplifying.

          Aside from the perception part of things ("its not sustainable they chopped apy in half to make it work ponzeus rabblerabble!!"), I can dig. Just gotta make sure the messaging communicates that clearly.

          Will the rewards be the same for all potential pools? Like you'd get the same OHM LP issuance whether you choose to be in OHM/ETH or OHM/DAI or OHM/BTRFLY or OHM/SCAMCOIN?

          Is it concerning that this relies so heavily on a function in uniswap-v2? People in a Curve LP would lose out?

          • Zeus replied to this.

            Looks like I wasn't as clear as I should have been. The 'no change' option means total emissions do not change, but emissions to stakers would decrease. The 'change' option means total emissions increase so that emissions to stakers remain the same. my reasoning for supporting the 'no change' option is that we can supplement this decrease through OHM bonds, where OHM holders can convert to future tokens in exchange for a higher yield (essentially locked staking). I know there was a previous proposal to bring it to the lower bound so this would accomplish that, but not a hill i'll die on.

            sirsean Will the rewards be the same for all potential pools? Like you'd get the same OHM LP issuance whether you choose to be in OHM/ETH or OHM/DAI or OHM/BTRFLY or OHM/SCAMCOIN?

            Is it concerning that this relies so heavily on a function in uniswap-v2? People in a Curve LP would lose out?

            yes, all pools enabled would receive emissions at the same rate. there's no risk here when it comes to gamification since you can capture the same amount if you just stake the tokens, but it is only available on uni-v2 style pools as far as i know.

            BathtubToaster Also, will people staked into LP positions count towards the expansion amounts?

            lets say as an example you have 100 OHM and staking grows at 1% per day. if you remained staked, you'd get 1 the first day, 1.01 the second, etc. instead you LP. the first day the pool stays flat, so you earn 1 (same as staking). the next day, people sell the other token and take out 10% of the ohm side; now you only receive 0.91. the next day, people buy the other token and add 20% to the ohm side; now you receive 1.12. etc. it scales based on whats in the pool right at the time of a rebase. hopefully that makes sense.

            bubbidubb

            bubbidubb Anyone that wants to avoid the dilution of holding OHM in an LP, could simply chose to use gOHM instead of OHM

            i think that this fragmentation is unhealthy for a few reasons. it:

            • draws confusion due to very different units, where we want to maintain OHM as the unit of account
            • requires a very deep OHM-gOHM bridge to route trades from Olympus pools to third party pools without custom integration (routers like ie 1inch will not do this)
            • causes higher slippage due to the above
            • leads to greater arbitrage drain because of both of the above

            you can see these dynamics play out now with the (few) gOHM pairs that exist today

            bubbidubb I fear this is a technology trap where Olympus deploys logic that builds on somebody else's old, inefficient v2 technology instead of looking forward and really maximizing the potential of v3 or possibly in-house AMM technologies

            v3 is very difficult to work with by nature if you are optimizing for automation, as we are. current trends are all toward active management (the cost of efficiency). only solution to this is to provide capital to a custodian (gelato, gamma) who takes on that active management role with the cost of trust

            bubbidubb Incentivizing others to provide liquidity works to weaken the pooper2 paper.

            somewhat tough to work through, but i dont see this as the case since it is 1) always additive liquidity; 2) other pairs only push us toward walls when we trade counter to them; 3) already a possible dynamic with gOHM as you point out above innit

            bubbidubb Promoting 3rd parties to participate in 3rd party AMM's promotes and strengthens 3rd party AMM's ecosystems. It does not strengthen so much Olympus ecosystem

            🤔

            bubbidubb In my vision

            good vision tbh

            @Zeus thanks heaps for covering all of those points off, appreciate it

            This proposal reads like an admission that Protocol Owned Liquidity has its limits, when, from what I understand, it tries to implement a better user experience for buyers of bonds.

            I see the following problems with it:

            • It dilutes the notion of Protocol Owned Liquidity, which is almost synonymous to this project.
              Right now Olympus owns 99% of its LP which I think is a good thing for all the bespoke reasons such as stability and income from fees, but also marketing (especially for Olympus Pro - eat your own dogfood). Do we really want to dilute this by attracting 3rd party liquidity providers?
            • It makes a complicated protocol even more complicated
            • It could be misunderstood ("POL has failed")
            • It creates a dependency to protocols / protocol versions / AMMs that offer 'sync()', as pools on other AMMs would not see the same compounding, which would lead to a negative user experience and hence we would not want those pools in the first place.

            Or am I missing something? What are the benefits of this proposal to the protocol, besides the bespoke improved user experience for Bond buyers (which I think is pretty good already, with the alternatives of gOHM and the NFT… )? Is this something that the community has requested, or are we building for a potential future benefit?

            And yes I tend to agree with @bubbidubb 's points, particularly "In my vision… "

              cocreate i actually consider it the opposite: evidence of the strength of POL and not a concession of weaknesses. think of it like borrowing: when you have few assets, you want to avoid taking on debt since you may become trapped by high interest; when you have many assets, you want to take on debt since you can access it at low interest, and it allows you to do things you otherwise may not have been able to. it all comes down to cost and marginal benefit. any third-party liquidity is additive, and we don't need to pay for it since we do not need it. if others want to create new pairs and generate new activity where the protocol would not, that seems worthwhile to facilitate (even if not encourage/incentivize).

              Write a Reply...