kleb This seems like a great idea to work towards, OBTC kinda has a ring to it, however I'm not sure how big a project or operation that would be and obviously would represent a totally new discussion.

The overall consensus seems conflicted , the idea of holding BTC is great and makes total sense however the issues raised around the smart contract is concerning and would need to be checked.

On the flip side WBTC is established already and offers alot of opportunities however if OlympusDao is going to differentiate itself from the hundreds of other projects with less integrity then it's makes sense to choose wisely who we get into bed.

Personally I am undecided and would like to see a full honest audit and review of the smart contract by the Olympus dao code team.

    To be a decentralised reserve currency it only makes sense to have some backing by the original crypto asset in some shape or form. All for looking into alternative options but I like the idea of BTC exposure.

    I do not think wBTC holds up to the treasury standards. Also I don't see why there would be a time pressure to add BTC associated IoUs or derivatives to the treasury.

    It feels we could achieve the same benefits with none of the downside by just increasing wETH holding target, since it has been historically correlated with BTC.

    A 3,3% allocation is significant enough with current treasury growth rates to outweight benefits in case of a complete loss due to reg risks or custodial fails. Diversifying into wBTC does not reduce treasury risk but rather increases it.

    Far better to be partner via Pro with DAOs bringing in BTC derivatives to ETH or wait for better alternatives.

      Great idea. BTC is comparable to gold in terms of usage and nature, so a lot of sense to have it in the reserve.
      Any plan to put those WBTC to work?

      Not sure about wBTC either. Any other alternatives to bring in BTC like ren for instance?

      Hats off to Satoshi

      I'm just here to share my sincere worries of adopting WBTC to the treasury. We all know what happend with Fireblocks $72mln disaster (they are custodians, and lost the private key of a client). Even if it is not likely that this would happen, there are other risks involved with adding wbtc to the treasury. I'm full on against this proposal.

      tjhooker is this discussion/conclusion available somewhere? why did renBTC fail and by how much? I hope there will be space for ibBTC in the future, when/if enough liquidity is available.
      Anyway overall happy if big momma BTC gets added! 🙂

        Agree with the proposal. BTC in treasury will be beneficial in the long term. short term we will face some volatility swings up and swings down. But long term it would make OHM more profitable

        Baitfish It feels we could achieve the same benefits with none of the downside by just increasing wETH holding target, since it has been historically correlated with BTC.

        This. If we want our decentralized reserve to take on 3.3% custodial risk immediately, then we should just take in 3.3% more ETH. I understand that policy is probably looking towards partnerships and integrations with wBTC, but the price exposure aspect is solved with less risk holding ether.

          Baitfish I think you make a very good point.

          I see the value in adding BTC but at the risk of decentralization: more ETH would be preferable in the meanwhile.
          It's definitely not the same value proposition as BTC but it perhaps strikes the balance between the RFV of a stablecoin vs the custodial nature of wBTC.

          Still open to changing my mind.

            abipup wbtc is centralised and btc itself if non P.O.S.so not good for environment or long term crypto ethos/pathos. Ohm will still be there when BTC fails I hope.

            Plenty of other good defi projects to support like centrifuge, klima, increase eth, etc

              abipup Thank you for the reply.

              You are correct, 3.3% of RFV is a sensible, risk-conscious approach. I applaud the Treasury team.

              renBTC is a disappointment. Yeah, I agree. I didn't ask for it anyway.

              But it won't take 60-90 days to raise 3.5M. We did 35M in LUSD in two weeks. Straight to the RFV.

              We have the best growth engine in crypto. It won't take a harmful amount of time to get real BTC when the time comes. It'll take a governance proposal, a vote, and one week. Where's my Remindooors at?

              We don't need to settle for this ersatz digital fool's gold, Persephone's pomegranate, forcing Mt. Olympus to cope with a winter it never had before.

              You want exposure to BTC. Cool. Market conditions say it's a good idea. I agree.

              I'm way more comfortable with SNX-backed sBTC. That gets us the price action, and we know we can trust Synthetix. They're getting a Token Reactor eventually anyway. Loads of liquidity.

              I'm even comfortable with Rune's BTC. Their EVM contracts suck, but nothing's wrong with their BTC side (yet).

              Holding wBTC doesn't signal to the world that we embrace the biggest asset in crypto.

              It signals that we don't care about badly written custody smart contracts. It's a shallow move, and OGs will see right through it.

              I'm impressed with the Bitgo squad for being so stable and reliable for so long. But Tetranode's Life of a Thanksgiving turkey is too real. It only takes one bad day…

              Let's vote no, then publish this proposal. Everywhere. I'll put out a summary if you want. I've done a bunch for ScribeDAO. Get somebody. Get Jaws. Get Asfi.

              We'll signal to the world that we are looking for a decentralized solution. They'll come.

                  wBTC is terrible Idea. BTC is fine, BUT wBTC is a certainly not a good idea. There are better alternative. People voting shouldn't just blindly vote for the sake, but due diligence must be made.

                  This is great. Let's get WBTC in there and diversify into renBTC (more decentralized) in future once its bigger.

                  the idea of getting btc into the reserve is a great step. but the how can't be underestimated

                  as pointed out 3% is a conservative approach, but it opens up a way forward... much easier to start on the right track
                  I would rather increase eth's riseeve being the most liquid collateral and without trust assumptions

                  also the idea of a btc wallet on native blockchain controlled by dao would be a way to be our own boss, how to do is a good question

                  Super concerned about anything centralized. Hopefully the regulators completely ignore wBTC because it's not a stable coin, but the industry desperately needs a fully decentralized reserve currency and wBTC doesn't help the treasury in that regard. I do understand that it is a much larger MC and much more liquid than other wrapped BTC alternatives. I also understand that this would be a pretty small part of the overall treasury and it is an important asset to consider given the large MC nature of BTC.

                  I have no conclusion here, just rambling thoughts. I guess I lean towards voting in favor of the proposal just to expand the treasury and have exposure to the current king in crypto. I just really dislike the centralized version of wBTC, but it's likely not a concern from regulators at this time, and the larger market for wBTC is safer than other options atm.