OIP-94: Interim Ranged Stability Policy Levers
Ctrl Z lol
what we need is also a secondary market for bonds/inverse bonds. they promised bonds v2 would enable this and did not deliver
- Edited
Woah.
I caught some of this in Policy yesterday but got the wrong end of the stick so need some clarification please sers..
Firstly, Inverse Bondsβ¦does this now mean whenever OHM price is ABOVE the "Buy" part of (wall, wall) Inverse Bonds turn on - or; only if the moving average bottom price falls WITHIN that bottom range, Inverse Bonds are triggered, or; Inverse Bonds trigger if the "Buy" wall runs out of powder and price falls BELOW that range?
At the point IB is triggered (is this manually issued still or programatically?) users can start exchanging OHM for assets from the treasury, at a premium to market price - correct?
If so, this is concerning to me as it starts a precedence of the protocol (dipping into its savings account) in order to scale back previous success in OHM printing. Is this a legitimate concern?
Sure, we burn the OHM which MAY assist priceβ¦but it feels a waste to get rid of that OHMβ¦the whole point is to build thick OHM liquidity. It feels counterproductive to burn it.
We should also be looking at ways to aid the protocol in protecting its treasury.
My understanding is we are just looking at ways to direct the OHM liquidity (of which there is a lot) to stabilise price, right? I don't think this should be done at the cost of losing treasury assets.
The treasury should be "Liquidity Provider of Last Resort" - similar to a central banks role of "Lender of Last Resort."
OIP-93 allows users to provide AMM liquidity and receive their OHM in LP token form as a rebase and AMM fee's in exchange for some Impermanent Loss, right?
Can we not use a mechanism, whenever we fall to the bottom price range of the 120 day moving average where the protocol "soft rugs" by uncoupling LP's on AMM's and incentivise's stakers to provide liquidity in its stead to AMM pools in exchange for:
- AMM fee's
- Regular rebase rewards at normal rate as per OIP-18
- The unpaired OHM as an additional reward for taking on the role of primary LP (which hopefully offsets IL)
Drying up OHM liquidity on exchanges works the same way burning it does, except its not permanent.
The treasury gets to keep its LP pair-assets and redeploy.
No OHM is handed in for burning...instead becoming an LP is incentivised for a higher OHM reward rate.
Then once price rises, protocol becomes the main LP again. (Or maybe we keep stakers as main LP's to soak up the excess OHM from breaking LP's until we hit equilibrium).
The price and 120 day moving average could meet at 50 $after 1 month or 30$ after 2 months. The ma is going down as well donβt forget that
Additional Proposal: I'd like to propose that instead of burning the OHM, we segregate it and use it to incentivize Olympus Pro clients to bond OHM-X LPs.
This is a prime opportunity to experiment with incentivized utilization of OHM as a unit of exchange - isolating these tokens instead of burning will remove the OHM from circulation until utilized in an OlyPro LP Bond. It should not be staked. As such, until eventually purchased from the respective LP and staked, no dilution will result from the OHM in this stash. This would also prevent a situation in which the amount of OHM burned becomes detrimental to long-term expansion goals.
While OIP's-93/4 will help to stabilize OHM and hopefully reignite interest from the wider community, we need to find other methods of diffusing OHM throughout the system. Odyssey is a great move. As are many others. Let's use this to-be-burned OHM to get ETH and DAI out of swaps between OHM and Olympus Pro partner tokens.
I saw a little interest in Discord, but if folks are for it here I can write up a post in General.
bouttreetreefiddy Could you please write something up on this, saw a bit of this discussion as well, I'm definitely a yes for this and really just have questions around whether there are better ways to use the Ohm beyond burning it, so your post is well timed
bouttreetreefiddy There will be some new products that partners can leverage if they alternatively bond gOHM in (versus us providing the OHM captured here).
Interesting thought though - would be keen to read a proposal in General or on Discord.
streetjesus I did see that and agree that would be really positive. I don't think it's an either-or, I think both that and what I'm suggesting would be helpful in advancing the ohm network effect.
in favour (period)
In Policy Team We Trust. In favour ofc
This will create really interesting trading dynamics. Excited for it.
- Edited
First of all, LFG.
But I just wanted to raise one question, echoing some of the comments made above, on why we want to burn the OHM? I understand that this makes sense from a reducing supply standpoint but since OHM will continue to rebase the effect on the total supply decrease will be short-lived and I don't see how burning adds a lot of value.
More importantly though, I think that this OHM could be used in better ways. What if instead of burning the OHM we send it to the DAO Funds address? That way we extend the runway of the DAO since normal bonds will be switched off during this 90 day period (and hence the DAO has lost its funding stream). Alternatively, DAO-owned OHM from this address could be used for partnerships, incentivization programs, or some other causes. And if it turns out we don't need the OHM after all we can always burn it at a later stage (or perhaps to add it back to an LP later on).
Interesting ideas, though it's important to note that the Treasury can simply re-mint the OHM as needed for these kinds of initiatives. In the meantime, I really prefer to have the OHM fully out of circulation. It's cleanest from a supply perspective, to not have to specifically earmark certain OHM tokens.
Haha big wall I like
Having the liquidity removed ohm be burned futhers the impact of our inverse bonding lever by reducing supply at the same time as pushing price levels. Would much rather this than reintroducing that liquidity right back into the market. We have funds for project incentives already do we not?