OIP-94B Inverse Bond Framework Approval
zachlight16 Olympus DAO legal counsel advised we not burn the OHM. That OHM will not go to the DAO wallet, it stays in the Treasury and may be used in future features or could be used for RBS walls/cushions.
I understand. Is there any reason? There is already a lot of OHM in the treasury that is not used. What is the point of adding more and increasing supply that might be sold later? It makes OHM even less attractive than it is now…
The OHM in the DAO wallet is not the same as Treasury OHM. Repurchased OHM will be held in the Treasury wallet for the protocol to use, whereas the DAO wallet uses OHM mostly for operational expenses.
Speaking to Suggestion #2 - There's alignment on this internally as well. Working on adjustments in support of this in a future release of the dashboard. RBS is will largely be the focus but there's a general restructuring happening so we'll be adjust metrics accordingly.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Hi All.
I feel this should be two distinct OIPs.
1. Approval to keep OHM acquired on treasury balance sheet. We already voted to burn.
2. A framework for the inverse bond markets.
On the framework, if the framework and decision is known, what are thoughts on price just hovering around the lower end and dipping below 25% liquid before each market opens. if all market timings known, this could also be possibly used via bots to sell and buy back.
- Edited
I come from the corner where Preservation of Capital is paramount. Hence I would like to see that the dollar amount of Liquid Backing Held follows a curve similar to the look of:
f(x) = 1 / x
where f(x) represents dollar amount of Liquid Backing remaining in Treasury and x represents time
rather than the proposed capacity sizing that seems to follow the linear type of curve such as
f(x) = a - b*x
The proposed capacity sizing seems to enable Liquid Backing to linearly hit 0? Game over.
A 1/x type of curve should ensure there will always be at least some Liquid Backing left.
So far we have spent (my understanding) $54m on price prop through IB. 54m USD corresponds to 540 man years of highly skilled 1st world engineering labor. We still have about 2,000 man years remaining in Treasury to reach the vision of a decentralized reserve currency.
I come from the corner where Preservation of Capital is paramount. Hence I would like to see that the burn rate of Liquid Backing follows a curve similar to the look of:
f(x) = 1 / x
where f(x) represents dollar amount of Liquid Backing remaining in Treasury and x represents time
rather than the proposed capacity sizing that seems to follow the linear type of curve such as
f(x) = a - b*x
The proposed capacity sizing seems to enable Liquid Backing to linearly hit 0? Game over.
A 1/x type of curve should ensure there will always be at least some Liquid Backing left.
So far we have spent (my understanding) $54m on price propping through IB. 54m USD corresponds to 540 man years of highly skilled 1st world engineering labor. We still have about 2,000 man years remaining in Treasury to reach the vision of a decentralized reserve currency.
electo I tend to disagree about making this two OIP's; it's the "final" framework before RBS and I think it should pass or fail as a whole.
Not sure how successful that attack vector could be. Bots would need to buy their OHM back eventually in this case, so the fees they'd pay on that would need to be offset both ways. Inverse bond discounts have been routinely below 0.6% so it would not be profitable even if they could manage this logistically.
- Edited
bubbidubb Now there's 2 posts lol forum very good.
The issue I see here is that the bonds markets work on a linear timeframe so I'm not sure how we can set capacity to function on an inverse proportional basis, other than to launch a new market every day with massive capacity the first day and decaying over 1/x. If that's the only way it can work then it seems like lots of effort for little gain.
That's the functional side, but philosophically, what's the purpose of keeping reserves if they never get used? I personally don't see the benefit of never using your last x OHM.
The purpose of safeguarding reserves would be to secure project longevity, and to maintain/build market confidence in the project and its valuation. This project is very experimental, and an ambitious vision such as creating the world's decentralized reserve currency is going to take a lot more than 2 years from today. The experimentation, iteration, innovation and engineering required to reach the vision will require a tons of funding. Reserves = funding.
Also, at the extreme sad end of it, wouldn't there just be:
1 last OHM left,
0 liquid backing left
32.5M worth of vested assets
Might be a good deal for the OHM owner, assuming ofc that the vested assets really are worth 32.5M and transferrable?
Fun picture: US Treasury seems to have been running Inverse Bonds on their gold between 1960-1970 until they realized its not going to end well and said to hell with our commitment; nobody is gonna claim no more of our reserves. 
Price keeps falling. I am not sure if the actions taken are good enough. So please evaluate your proposals with this point in mind. If it requires taking a step back and revsiting we should consider it.