oops to be fair, we get more than just price exposure with wBTC; that flavor of BTC has the most integrations across DeFi for depositing and trading.

Agreed that we definitely don't want to deal with KYC/AML should we choose to redeem our wBTC for the real thing. If we were to choose to do that, the route could be WBTC -> RenVM (not renBTC) -> BTC multisig. So we wouldn't hold any renBTC, just use their bridge to get to solid BTC.

Of course, we'd give up the productive use of BTC, but it's the "real thing" in that case.

In either case, I still believe the best course is to start with wBTC first: WBTC to be the most productive, and can vote later to move to BTC thru renVM if we need to.

oops

I can't disagree with your fine points.

We'll get there, all in good time.

Olympus already shines.

Not a fan of wBTC. If there's not an ideal tokenized BTC solution available now, why doesn't OHM focus on solving that problem in-house? Seems like something the central bank of defi should be capable of doing, right? ohmBTC anyone?

    joejoebiggums

    GREAT idea. Unfortunately something like that would require significant development and testing time/resources to implement - i.e., not just a money cost but also probably at minimum 3-6 months (on top of DAO core time drain).

    Personally, I consider wBTC an immediate stopgap but not a permanent solution. We can always migrate away from it or transfer out to another better option. While I recognize the risks, I think they are minimal at this time (and overall exposure is low).

    Why not add a proposal for such an idea and see what the appetite for a major project like that would be? I'd vote "yes" for that.

    There’s nothing wrong with OHM owning a centralized asset.

    As long as OHM is decentralized, let’s vacuum ALL assets into the treasury.

    10 days later

    The governance voting for this has been completed. So what is the target date of this going live?

    A couple of questions as I don't think I saw a response for yet:
    1. re: "We also expect that WBTC will open up multiple partnership opportunities for Olympus"

    Can you elaborate here on what potential partnership opportunities this brings for Olympus? I don't quite understand the vision here.

    2. re: "Currently, we’re sitting at around $107M risk free value, so the target would be 3.3% of that which is $3,531,000 worth of WBTC. As the RFV grows, so does our allocation in dollar terms."

    Why is 3.3% of RFV appropriate here? Why not a smaller static value like 0.5% of the RFV snapshot at a point in time when the proposal is accepted and then in following proposals vote to increase this percentage accordingly to the goal 3.3% as we prove our hypothesis to the community first?

      Is there an API that we can use to communicate with cosmos-based chains? Why don't we try to integrate with Thorchain so we can hold actual BTC in our reserve? I understand why we need wrapped forms of crypto, but wouldn't it be better for the protocol to own the actual thing?

        There should be a trustless way of getting Bitcoin on ethereum network. WBTC is wrapped asset guaranteed to be 1:1 backed by Bitcoin by an opague centralized company. By the same logic as OlympusDAO has not chosen to mint OHM against USDT or USDC, it should also refute from filling the treasury will assets governed by centralised entities.

        6 days later

        Best store of value in the crypto space, definitely down

        16 days later

        Bitcoin is a great asset -- there is no need for Olympus to take shortcuts here however.
        I vote for patience, solutions like Threshold Network, Axelar Network are incoming.

        Write a Reply...