• Proposal
  • OIP-97 - Cross-Chain EconOHMy Expansion Budget

RFC can be found here

Background

Roughly six months ago the Proteus programme was funded to facilitate the cross-chain expansion of Olympus. The intent of Proteus was not only to reach new users of other chains (that were often excluded due to Ethereum gas fees) but also to create new partnerships and integrations and develop use cases for the gOHM token.

In that time period Proteus has allowed us to:

  • Expand gOHM to Arbitrum, Avalanche, Polygon, Fantom, Boba and Optimism.

  • Start the developments for a CosmWasm expansion.

  • Introduce Olympus to a new, wider audience through marketing, social media exposure, and AMAs with protocols on other chains.

  • Create gOHM price oracles on Arbitrum, Avalanche, Polygon, and Fantom - a necessary step for most integrations.

  • Support the cross-chain econOHMy and innovate cross-chain gOHM use cases, e.g. Dopex, Jones, Vesta, Thales, Rari, Market.xyz, Tracer, Impermax (and others in development).

While the original Proteus budget was significant, the actual costs to run the programme turned out to be way lower than expected. This is partly because the expansions were strategic in nature, but also due to tight-knit partnerships with cross-chain DEXes who shared the burden of liquidity incentives (and stopping gOHM rewards when possible).

Over these six months we have been extremely conservative with proteus rewards, spending a total of 222.6 gOHM - significantly below the $100m (at the time, approximately 5,000 gOHM) that was originally approved. A quick note; ~20 gOHM of the actual expenditure was used for a token swap with SpiritSwap, allowing for permanent liquidity on Fantom through gauge rewards.

Motivation

Proteus was originally approved for a period of six months and this mandate is now coming to an end. The initial burst of cross-chain expansion has arguably been successful in nature as illustrated by the bullet points above. A large part of the value has also been intangible in nature, such as introducing Olympus to new audiences and building partnerships with protocols that are native to other chains.

Creating a cross-chain expansion budget provides optionality to explore new opportunities and to develop new use cases for gOHM on other chains. At the same time, the learnings over the last few months have shown that we don’t need to spend significant amounts to pursue these objectives.

In this OIP we would like to propose a maximum budget of 50 gOHM/month - to be spent only when necessary. Those necessary actions are as follows: bootstrapping liquidity through gOHM incentives, doing minor DAO-to-DAO swaps, or funding other small but necessary expenses. More generally, this budget is to be used to fund and support the cross-chain econOHMy and gOHM use cases.

Please note that a key difference in this budget proposal vs. the original Proteus programme is that it’s focused on supporting and expanding the current cross-chain econOHMy rather than reaching new audiences or serving as R&D for cross-chain POL. This means, for example, that we will not be funding liquidity pools on new chains unless there are clear opportunities for gOHM use cases.

Downsides

There are some natural drawbacks to cross-chain pools and use cases, such as increased cross-chain gOHM arbitrage and the potential risk of farmers selling liquidity incentives (in the case of gOHM liquidity mining). In our view these drawbacks are worth it to pursue and support more gOHM integrations and utility.

Proposal

  • Fund a new cross-chain expansion budget at 50 gOHM/month from DAO funds.

  • This budget is to be used to support and expand the cross-chain econOHMy and gOHM use cases. Note that this is an upper limit that allows for optionality in exploring new opportunities and partnerships, but that the budget won’t be spent unless we find those.

  • Run the new programme for a maximum of 6 months before re-evaluating and doing another governance vote.

Polling period

This forum poll will run until the 31st of May. Following that an official snapshot vote will be created.

Approve the budget as outlined above?

"This budget is to be used to support and expand the cross-chain econOHMy and gOHM use cases." And then there is an announcement in Discord to stop pooling on Polygon. Where did it come from? Could someone explain this?

Also, on my personal level, I cannot see my rewards in Sushi UI gathered from farming on Polygon. Has anyone else had this issue?

5 days later

This activity has been helpful to identify the utility of L2s and where activity is on-chain.

Supportive of the relatively small budget.

Happy to evolve Proteus into a more concentrated effort.

Polygon was wound down because the rewards paid didn't lead to a surge in use cases over on Polygon. Arbitrum is a better use of those rewards imo

    abipup

    Perhaps there's some value in a fresh communication to community of what Proteus is intended to do from a protocol perspective and how those successes or failures are evaluated. For example, if incentivization on Polygon did create use cases then full support winding those down as they would just be an expense with no return. If Arbitrum has been a winner, how can we qualify that and cite which initiatives we can tie back to Proteus.

    Some forensics and accounting on this might be really helpful to solidify pivots vs. community thinking that their unique chain and LP is special and should be incentivized.

    Measuring the utility produced would be great.

    The overall expansion to L2's across the ETH ecosystem is great. The past 6 months OHM has killed it.

    I'd love to see a few more medium to large sized protocols introduce gOHM into their platforms for farming or maybe even as collaterilization(think using gOHM as a way to mint more frapped usdt).

    100% in favor of allocating more funds to this.

    I agree that we go forward with cross chain pollination with the sort of modest budget you suggest. Proteus is in line with the goal of creating a reserve currency.

    Olympus won't be on L1 forever and it is imperative to build utility for the OHM token on other chains, this of course requires liquidity. The DAO barely utilized the Proteus budget that was previously approved. This will also provide additional data to support the DAOs decision on where to put liquidity first and who are the most aligned partners.

    Generally in favor, what would be helpful though is to outline more concrete success metrics.

    Are we targeting to reach a minimum of $250k liquidity per chain? or$ 500k? or $1m? or more?

    8 days later

    Budget seems to be a way for a certain folks to make more money. Dashboard is having issues and no fix on it yet. Time taken to complete is not mentioned in the proposals. Proposals takes ages to complete. This is not acceptable.

    Write a Reply...