TAP-5: Pilot Deposit into Orion Saver

kschan

Aigur I think this proposal hasn't been discussed within the DAO, so I will pull it down. Also, please refrain from moving the proposal to Snapshot without holding an informal vote first.

Aigur

[update 2] - moved to general forum: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/163-poll-comment-request-former-tap-5-pilot-deposit-into-orion-saver

The Snapshot will be used for polling purposes only and will not be actioned. It will be deleted 1 day before its scheduled close date.

[update 1] - see active Snapshot for suggested TAP-5.

https://snapshot.org/#/olympusdao.eth/proposal/QmQogaDRApSScKvYq3datHA8qzC2AtJPuNboBa5DZswSUh

Ser, the $300K suggested treasury allocation comprises 0.0945% of our Treasury (market value). To be clear, the suggested pilot allocation is for less than one-tenth of one percent of the Treasury.

OIP suggestions for treasury allocations are routinely posted as Proposals as a first step (with informal voting) and the most active community discussion as to whether or not to proceed typically occur in the Proposal stage.

For examples, see OIP-15, OIP-19, OIP-24, OIP-27, OIP-29, OIP-31, OIP-32.

These OIPs all affected or will affect Treasury holdings, and some of them have materially effected the entire Olympus project.

It is unclear why the TAP-5 proposal has been removed. If you prefer, it can be re-posted as an OIP instead of a TAP, but it should remain posted in the Proposals forum either way.

I concur that informal votes should precede snapshots by at least one day (per the forum guidelines). In this case, since the suggested allocation was trivial, they went up on the same day. Other Snapshots have set this precedent (see Snapshot for OIP-28, which had no proposal, but is an amendment to the existing Treasury framework that will have a much larger financial impact to the Treasury than the suggested TAP-5).

Furthermore, if the informal vote is censored from the Proposals page (as it has been here) then moving to snapshot only after an informal vote is not possible.

Thus, if the Proposal remains censored then the Snapshot should stay, so the community has a chance to vote one way or another. If the proposal is re-instated then I can delete the Snapshot until informal voting is complete.

kschan

Aigur As @0xFelix pointed out, there are some factual errors in your proposal that make me think you have not done your due diligence. I don't want the TAP or Proposal section to be filled with proposals that are half-baked.

As mentioned in the TAP guidelines, this should have gone through rigorous discussions within our DAO before posted here. Please join our Policy team if you feel strongly about this proposal.

0xFelix

Look, I have no strong opinion on this, but I will say that I would prefer if the thread was up on the forum before going to a snapshot so we can have a proper discussion on this. Now it's being rushed through and even though the amount might be minor, you need to check the community's response on this (just look at the GRO proposals how even a minor amount can warrant a lot of discussion).

I also wanted to point out two factual errors in the proposal:

"It provides the highest single-sided FRAX-denominated yields in DeFi (currently 13.50% and expected to increase in the near future via Orion token incentives)." --> This is wrong (but of limited impact), since our treasury Frax on Convex is earning roughly 28% right now and has been earning >20% for a long period of time.

"noting that all three stablecoins in the Olympus Treasury are sensitive to counter-party risk from USDC's centralised issuer, Circle" --> This is more erroneous because one of the main benefits of adding LUSD to the treasury's stablecoin portfolio is that it's a 100% decentralized (not just the contracts, but also the font-ends), fully backed by ETH, and in no way linked to any centralized entities like Circle. So to be clear: if DAI or USDC fails, or gets censored, there will be 0 impact on LUSD.

Finally, I also just wanted to highlight that the amount might be minor but we'd be adding a lot of risk exposure due to the fact this needs to be bridged. Before voting on this proposal I would like to see a risk assessment from the policy team on this.

Aigur

0xFelix

Thanks for the feedback, ser.

"It provides the highest single-sided FRAX-denominated yields in DeFi (currently 13.50% and expected to increase in the near future via Orion token incentives)."

this statement refers to 'single-sided FRAX-denominated yields', and is accurate as far as I know. The FRAX yields on Convex primarily consist of trading fees and non-FRAX token yields (e.g. Convex and Curve tokens per OIP-14).

"noting that all three stablecoins in the Olympus Treasury are sensitive to counter-party risk from USDC's centralised issuer, Circle"

this is a typo in the Snapshot. The Proposal deleted by the Mod (which was intended to be focal point for discussion) correctly noted that this exposure applied to 'two of three stablecoins in the Olympus Treasury' (being Dai and Frax).

I think this is a fair point and I fully agree, noting that OIP-25 (bridge to Arbitrum) was also first posted in this Proposal forum for review, which led to a good discussion and subsequent review (since the post was not deleted)

Aigur

kschan

There were no factual errors in the Proposal that was deleted, though there is a typo in the Snapshot.

Respectfully, the most rigorous discussion in the Dao routinely takes place in the Proposal forum itself, which has the ability to handle edits, comments and meaningful informal votes. Deleting the Proposal precluded that discussion from happening. I will re-start this process in the General Forum.

https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/163-poll-comment-request-former-tap-5-pilot-deposit-into-orion-saver

ProofofSteveGM

Aigur I agree with previous points made by @kschan and @0xFelix. You should always bring up proposals in the DAO forum to gauge general reaction before proceeding to an OIP or a TAP.