json This makes sense from a pure POL perspective, but it seems to make less sense in the direction we are going with Mint & Sync and such. If we are to encourage people to provide liquidity, then it makes more sense to participate via incentives through bribes - no?

  • json replied to this.

    json Currently, bribes provides Olympus with a cheaper way of acquiring such assets. This is the main motivation for pursuing this, otherwise I would agree with you.

    • json replied to this.

      dr00 This isn't about people providing liquidity, this is about cost-effective asset accrual.

      With any speculative endeavor, I'd love to make sure that we create a mechanism to report on how we're performing to plan. If we commit $100k DAI to this, could it be something that's tracked the quarterly to show the return (Favorable or Unfavorable) so that people can make an informed decision if we chose to continue? Always good to have a mechanism to report back how a thing did.

        balotelli45 Perhaps its the nomenclature associated with it but Olympus "bribing" for rewards with RFV/legitimate backing seems like it could have legal/reputational implications. I would feel better if we didn't call it bribing and it wasn't DAI. We have 300k+ of USDC sitting and is more risk-on than DAI.

        Relwyn You can just calculate rewards/$ spent on utilizing Hidden Hand or whatever. You can measure it now and that's why this proposal exists.

          Relwyn Indeed. Would love to discuss this with you if the proposal goes through.

          @json Yes good idea, I'll amend the proposal to use USDC instead of DAI.

          json Agreed that the formula is simple. It's more about creating metrics around the performance of an exercise such as this. For example: is 10% ROI enough? 20%? What does Treasury objectively aim to hit on a risk on effort? Etc.

          We can be good about voting to do a thing and then less good about evaluating if it was the right move in hindsight. I think that's easy to change and is a positive effort that can be shared with the partner protocols we're targeting new relationships with as well as retail users.

          • json replied to this.

            Relwyn I just don't think Olympus should bribe anyone or anything for asset accrual no matter the capital efficiency, its a game that I would think Olympus should be above.

            Why not just OTC with a close partner protocol or organization for vote weight?

            @balotelli45

              Ah, I see the disconnect. Your asserting an opinion on if Olympus should participate in bribes and I was commenting on if we do participate on them or anything else risk on, we should have better reporting metrics.

              So I actually agree with you json on if we should doing something with treasury assets called "Bribes". DeFi vernacular memes hard and at times its hard to say what's acceptable and what's not.

              If we want strategic governance power why couldn't we OTC for it vs. bribes? Conversely, if we incubated Redacted and provided them Flex Loans and partnership knowing Hidden Hand is Bribes, where's the objective line that shouldn't cross?

              My comment on metrics is more general asking that if we do a TIP or OIP we track success or failure so that we can collectively scrutinize, discuss and iterate. That just happened to come up in this discussion.

              json What do you mean by OTC for vote weight ?

              Again, I want to emphasize that ''Bribes'' are currently the most efficient means of acquiring Balancer governance power at small scale. Essentially, it means Olympus Treasury would have to spend less $ to reach its acquisition target (Still TBD).

              • json replied to this.

                balotelli45 OTC payment for their votes on our gauge. I understand why we're doing this because of the cost effectiveness I just don't think Olympus should be bribing.

                  json isn't it the same as bribing? paying somebody to vote for your pool…

                  Write a Reply...