• Proposal

  • OIP-94: Interim Ranged Stability Policy Levers

This will create really interesting trading dynamics. Excited for it.

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).

rhett

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.

    bubbidubb First order effects like price are very easy to track. As we mature I'm sure we can implement more advanced metrics like price velocity and offsets, to turn our system into more of like a true PID controller.

      abipup I voted yes but ask that the team consider using that ohm strategically for comp or bizdev.

        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?

          I hope this passes so I can pump and dump Ohm. Inverse bonds above backing will make the treasury pay a premium for each Ohm and reduce the backing for remaining holders, perfect for transferring the treasury to swing traders. Please vote yes.

            Guys, the proposal does not explain how protocol would benefit from selling its treasury assets… Wouldn’t that create even stronger pressure for selling OHM, eventually even resulting in breaking the buy wall?

              Reubz u forgtetting liquidity will be pulled making buying or selling ohm move the price much. Swing trading wont work without liquidity this is perfect for what ohm is and trying to do. Cant manipulate price really if not the liquidity to do so

                SUBGURU if you know OHM has a bunch of buy pressure, why would you sell?

                    melloone abipup - perhaps the purchased OHM could be stored (unstaked) in a dedicated Treasury wallet. Burning it seems like an underutilization of a liquid and composable asset. If we can't work out what to do with it now, we can at least take it out of circulation and warehouse it on the books.

                    We can always burn it later, but we can't unburn it.

                        Write a Reply...