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.

              abipup

              I voted yes at first as having a btc reserve seems a great idea.

              then I started reading the comments about this wrapped version of btc and the risks, so I wanted to change my vote at least to an abstain if not to a no, but I cant now. my vote appears to be locked in.

              I know its my fault for apeing in with a vote before reading, but I honestly thought we were past the 'is it decentralised' questioning phase. I thought everything was properly decentralised at this point - my fault! apologies everyone.

                  tommywun This is just the forum. The real vote comes afterwards. But yeah it's definitely a good idea to read it and research before voting.

                  If the proposal fails a vote here it's redrafted.
                  If not it goes to an actual vote.

                    Please no, WBTC is too much of a risk. I'd prefer to increase ETH exposure over IOU WBTC.

                    Hello Ohmies, I am very much in favor of this proposal but I also hope that in the near future we could go cross-chain and integrate with the THORChain eco-system. Which would allow our DAO to have real native BTC in our treasury and not wrapped asset. So as soon as possible, convert those future wBTC for native BTC.

                    Adding BTC to the treasury is good, but, like many, I'm not fond of WBTC either.
                    Voted no.

                    Voting to add wBTC to our treasury is a sacrifice of our core principles. We don’t need to erode our fundamental positions for FOMO. A decentralized and trustless solution for BTC will come, no need to buy in now and open the door to more trusted/centralized treasury assets. Are we not Olympus DAO, a decentralized fractional reserve currency? Or are we Olympus DAO, a 96.7% decentralized fractional reserve currency?

                    The intentions are good, but the price we pay by bending our core principles won’t be seen until the future. VOTE NO!

                    WBTC is not decentralised enough, so not a good option we believe