• Proposal
  • OIP-94: Interim Ranged Stability Policy Levers

76 was good proposal but this 94 is pretty epic tbh. fascinating shit as always. didn't expect anything less

Come on, let no one doubt that the future of Olympus is bright!

rhett I agree that it may be better to utilize the reclaimed OHM. Perhaps, JonesDAO farming as well or even reselling this with bonds as  opposed to minting new unless that is too circular. However, I’m not opposed to circular strategies. Just trying to think of ways to salvage the OHMs. Maybe use it as collateral within our internal Treasury leverage mechanisms.

rhett I agree that burning the ohm isn’t a optimal. Let’s keep it to pay contributors or use it for future bizdev

    what we need is also a secondary market for bonds/inverse bonds. they promised bonds v2 would enable this and did not deliver

      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 Bonds…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 price…but it feels a waste to get rid of that OHM…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).

      Winnal Just for clarity, Inverse bonds wouldn't be that type of bond because the vesting period is instantaneous.

      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 don’t 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.

        abipup

        1, 2 & 3:
        LFG !!!!!!!!! 💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖
        LFG !!!!!!!!! 💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖
        LFG !!!!!!!!! 💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖

        1 question:

        In general (not iso to this OIP) - why use MA as price guide, and not some intrinsically based metric? MA dampens only volatility, but says not so much about value guidance?