For now against this proposal as I don't see the reasons or the value. The proposal still reads like there's some other reason that isn't being said out loud here because none of the reasons or "value-add" to Olympus sound like value-add. I'll go through each one by one:
"In order for Olympus Pro to scale and meet the demands of DeFi, it must be a credibly neutral platform laser-focused on bonds-as-a-service."
Permisionlessness is enough for being credibly neutral. Not sure how exchanging Oly multisigs for a different set of multisigs that includes Oly people changes that. Also not sure why laser focus can't be maintained while staying as an Olympus DAO team… it's already an independent team.
As someone else has helpfully given this example Oly Pro / Olympus relationship can be viewed similar to AWS /Amazon relationship. It can exist as an independent product while staying within the DAO.
"There is an increasing divergence between the development efforts of both a reserve currency and a dedicated bond platform."
Again, this divergence in itself shouldn't preclude splitting away from the DAO. Oly Pro is already an independent team within the DAO. I'm also not sure if Oly Pro is "divergent to reserve currency" goals to begin with. It was pitched as and continues to accumulate a wide variety of DeFi tokens that we'd otherwise have to either do strategic swaps or accrue through bonds. If those tokens don't add any value to our treasury, why did we accumulate them and continue to do so? why were they not dumped as soon as possible to realize profits? (my understanding is, it's because we saw value in accruing a wide variety of tokens)
"Assets acquired via Olympus Pro are an important, but relatively small, percentage of overall Olympus holdings and revenue streams. For example, every $1 in OP revenue is currently being priced based on the market’s perception of OHM."
just because it's a small revenue stream (I'd argue it's only one of the two "real" revenue streams i.e. non-dilutive) doesn't mean it'll stay so. I have no idea what the example is trying to say.
"By deploying OP as its own protocol, we believe that it will provide more value to Olympus than keeping it in-house and allow Olympus Pro to achieve a true appraisal of revenue streams and growth potential."
This is extremely vague, how?
"Importantly, there will be no fees charged for Olympus bonds deployed from Bond Protocol."
lol, this isn't a value-add. obviously there should be no fees charged for these bonds. They were envisioned and developed in-house by and for Olympus.
"By releasing Olympus Pro as its own protocol with its own mission (bonds-as-a-service), Olympus further focuses on its core product"
Again, the Oly Pro team is independent. See Amazon/AWS again.
"Olympus has made a large investment in developing Olympus Pro, while OP has accrued substantial revenues to the Olympus Treasury."
so has OP accrued substantial revenues, or has it not? because the proposal earlier states that it is one of the minor revenue streams. And if that revenue stream of a variety of tokens isn't something olympus needs to continue accruing, what we have accrued is also useless (or like 80% less useless now then back when it was accrued), so Oly Pro has developed as a brand on the back of "olympus treasury will likely not sell your tokens" meaning we end up sitting on huge loss in $ value accrued while OP spins off?
"Olympus will still benefit from Bond Protocol’s success and maintain substantial influence in its development through ownership and governance rights in Bond Protocol."
this is ill-defined. what does "ownership and governance rights" mean? how much ownership? and why should Olympus give up on 100% ownership and 3.3% fees for partial ownership and 0% fees?
