mors We have looked into several different tokenized BTC and we came to the conclusion that WBTC is the best option for Olympus at the moment. Despite its centralization risks, WBTC has the largest market cap ($11.8b), is the most liquid and represents the best candidate for an LP pair if we wanted to explore this path in the future.

I'm sure they will vote for other kinds of BTC in the future. Just gotta start somwhere.

      We need to move away from proof-of-work as a space. Climate and other environmental impacts are too severe to continue using PoW coins, much less developing new integrations against them. Strongly no on this, for that reason and also centralization risk of the bridge.

      I'm not well enough versed on this to have an opinion (yet), but I would like to see a response to this concern:

      https://infernaltoast.medium.com/ohm-on-adding-pow-currency-to-its-treasury-ca9e703cdf94

      "As Cryptopunk #1164, I firmly disagree with OHM’s proposal 35 to add WBTC to its treasury. While WBTC does have the price-peg to real ‘Bitcoin Core Chain’, it is a flimsy IOU that is wholly operated by BitGo. The smart contract of WBTC is atrocious: it allows a private key to mint infinite WBTC for any reason at any time, allowing the key holder to rug every WBTC liquidity pool for all of its assets at any time. This is a major threat to OHM. This would mean that the leak of some keys would jeopardize OHM completely."

        I am in favor of adding BTC but it should not be a centralized version of it, which is wBTC.

          I agree but with a slight tweak ; would it be possible to convert those wbtc to btc periodically or instantly….that would make alot more sense as btc is actual decentralization.

          Down horrendous.

          BTC is the granddaddy, sure.

          wBTC is the bastard incest child of Hades and Gary Gensler, sent to drag this protocol across the River Styx.

          We really want to get in bed with Bitgo?

          I'd rather wait. Just chill until we figure out a way to get BTC exposure without compounding custodian risk.

          We don't need a foot in the door. We're the talk of Twitter right now. Everyone in CT is coping b/c they think they missed they train. We don't need more advertising.

          If we have to move NOW (we don't) I'd rather figure something out with Rune, tbh. At least they talk about being decentralized. And they'd love us forever for gracing them with our godly ambrosia. They'd be the left side of our bell curve. Not that it would work. They still can't figure out EVM. Oh well.

          We don't need this right now. We've done how many millions in LUSD this past week? Fastest growth in protocol history on the back of getting away from DAI.

          Why are we taking on MORE custodian risk?

          We're smarter than this, gang.

          Trojan horse, fam. Trojan horse.

          Don't get cucked.

          Or, you know, maybe I'm wrong and it's the best thing ever.

            I'd much rather we go with alternative L1s like Atom, or that we leverage a partnership with Rune and Shapeshift to integrate native BTC instead of using wBtc. For the same centralization concerns voiced by so many others.

            I voted no because wbtc is no bueno. There are better btc on Ethereum alternatives

            abipup We must keep in mind that Olympus is a reserve bank, not an investment fund.

            If we aim to be a decentralized reserve bank, custodial orange coin is not the path we want to walk. I understand that it is the market leader. But Maker with 3.3% USDC is to Olympus with 3.3% wBTC. (Ik, ik, they have like 49%)

            Our biggest concern with more desirable forms of BTC appears to be that they have less liquidity and market share. Haven't we witnessed the ability for Olympus to drive demand and suck up tokens? Haven't we described a narrative that Olympus is leading the way with innovation?

            Left curves: Let's not be the people buying a 99cent 2L of soda just because the bottle of water right next to it has less liquidity.

            I'm sure policy has had this debate 10x already internally, and I don't claim to understand the nuances as well, but perhaps we can leverage our massively growing market cap and community to walk the path less traveled and be the tipping point for…"DeFi 2.0" to follow.

              I like this idea, however not with wBTC (same as Tetra tweeted), why dont we look at renBTC?

                Echoing YB2015 point, this is link to wBTC contract code . Could someone validate the code that highlights the point that "it allows a private key to mint infinite WBTC…."? I am all for diversifying the treasury and the importance of liquidity cannot be understated, however if the statement above is true, we can do away with this risk. I am sure there are many options available.

                oops Ser we don't have to do anything "now" so let's reframe the discussion around "is it a good time to do it."

                My answer is yes, it is a good time to do it, for the reasons laid out in the proposal. I think it's long past time that Olympus held the single largest asset in the crypto space. But there isn't a single perfect solution to holding BTC on Ethereum right now. There are risks to every flavor of ERC-20 BTC out there: renBTC and sBTC also have their share of problems. WBTC, while centralized, has proven over years to be 1) extremely well-price pegged and low-risk, and 2) highly integrated into defi, allowing us to be productive with it (read: partnerships and liquidity). renBTC and sBTC don't have nearly the same level of benefits as WBTC, while each also have their own issues and risks to account for.

                renBTC is still very centralized, and to my knowledge is still in phase sub-zero of its decentralization roadmap. It has a long way to go; we'll be relying on Ren to not rug us.

                sBTC is fully synthetic in that there's no actual BTC backing it, only SNX. We're gaining exposure to BTC price, which is nice, but we don't have a claim to actual Bitcoin with it. It seems a bit hollow to hold it and claim we're holding BTC. It's the most decentralized option, but there's relatively little adoption.

                To counter the centralization risk, our conservative 3.3% allocation is purposefully risk-adjusted. This is a first, important, but small step towards fully decentralized BTC in our treasury. But it does position ourselves well for future improvements to the ERC-20 BTC space in an agile way.

                Imagine a year from now, a trustless and fully decentralized solution for BTC crops up, is fully battle tested, and is highly integrated into defi: the perfect solution arrives. Instead of 1) having sat on our thumbs for an entire year hoping and praying for the orange coin gods to grace us with perfection, or missing out on productive use of our treasury by holding less useful forms of BTC, and 2) having to then go through the rigmarole of slowly accumulating enough new BTC to be useful to us, we'll be able to quickly pivot into this new BTC with a single governance vote and swap.

                Again, I agree with the centralization concerns; decentralization truly is the future. But the time is right to acquire BTC, and imo WBTC is currently the best risk-adjusted way forward.

                    Tlacka RenVM (the underlying tech behind renBTC) is trying to move to be decentralized but as far as I've seen is still have 90% centralized nodes run by Ren. We don't gain much decentralization at all by going with them right now, plus there's far fewer integration possibilities with them versus with WBTC.

                      wBTC is better than no BTC at all.. but wBTC is not good, if there was some way to get the exposure directly to BTC that would be about 1000% preferred, also I think the total exposure should be bigger, in the 10-15% range, if the plan is for OHM to go for the long term, then the only thing we know for sure is that BTC is the most likely to still be here in 20 years.

                      wBTC may have better integration possibilities, but I echo the concern of others here regarding the centralised and questionable nature of wBTC. This is not going to change in the future. So what's the hurry in rushing into this which is going to very hard to undo? Why not wait until better options come available or something like REN transitions to the planned decentralised model?

                        krytie see my reply to Oops. Ren announced their roadmap to decentralization a year ago and have made very little progress on it. How long do we want to wait for them to get their act together? Ten years?

                        Not trying to minimize centralization risk, but the rewards far outweigh that risk.

                          Our friends at Finematics made a really great video and article summarizing the current state of wrapped corns btw

                          I'm aligned with him that WBTC is good but not the end goal.