RFC: Create a Cooler Loan Clearing House

Also - who will act as the lender in this case? Olympus funds the clearing house for the $OHM coolers, who approves them?

This is no doubt a "cool" idea! Possibly the "coolest". But couple of points:

1. that timeline seems rushed.
2. I don't think I can get behind putting in $15m into an unaudited contract. no matter who has written it. May be 500k if a "proof of concept" is needed. but anything more should require an audit.

Why wouldn't we just take 15m into frax lend? Seems we are taking risk on a new unproven smart contracts with significant capital.

Shpadoinkal Not having an oracle interaction, and no liquidations for users, is a very powerful feature.

Also, it is not explicit here, but borrowing at fixed rates also compelling for users to understand their cost of capital easily.

ruby33 fair enough. Still seems rather rushed with big numbers. Would love to hear from other policy folks..end of day anything that increases demand for ohm is good for us and the current solutions are not perfect by any means but seems strange to put 15m into a untested contract. Who maintains this going fwd or is it just purely permissionless and once it's deployed it just lives with no further work involved?

I like the idea overall. Essentially an inversed product to what Vendor Finance have on Arbitrum (i.e. the borrower creating a request as opposed to the lender creating a pool). So why should Olympus fund a clearing house for Cooler Loans as opposed to funding pool(s) on Vendor of various expiration dates, LTV's, interest etc.? Or should it do both

My main gripe, similarly to others, is the 15m DAI request. A pilot budget of 500k-1m would make more sense imo for testing and observing demand. Timeline doesn't seem that egregious, although it doesn't account for audits (if not already carried out).

Audit please.

It is encouraging to see creativity live and well in the world of OHM. I like the proof of concept approach also - it allows us to observe and to address problems in a constructive, thoughtful manner rather than in panic mode.

Zeus I like the concept, but I think this is a bit early and rushed. I'd like to see this have much more testing, finalization of a roadmap, and publishing of fully deployed code on mainnet or an L2, with the ability for people to test. I'd also like to see some kind of audit, by something like Sherlock.

$15m seems like quite a lot of money to deposit at this point in time, especially assuming a ~2% yield, and the high risk from a new smart contract with unaudited, or time-tested code.

This sounds to me like a slightly different - i.e. inverted - version of Vendor, which has been live on Arbitrum for a few months. And while I'm all for experimenting with these types of fixed-rate, fixed-term loans in practice, I do think the ask is too high and I don't think the treasury should be depositing $15m worth of reserve assets in unaudited and non battle tested contracts. A 500k pilot programme seems more reasonable IMO.

It also raises the question in my mind why we don't collaborate with Vendor to see if they are willing to deploy "inverted pools" on mainnet since 1) they're already audited and the contracts are being used, and 2) we've been in touch with them for a while already on the topic of fixed-rate, fixed-terms pools for Olympus.

This is a no brainer and desperately needed - tranche schedule timeline looks good - would be good to do a Code4Areana for the code out of treasury or grants

Awesome to see new innovations for the Olympus ecosystem. I will eco the majority of comments above on the deployment of a very substantial amount of protocol reserves into new protocols and contracts. Many protocol exploits are done on audited contracts that have been live for substantial amounts of time. I think that the highest priority for Olympus is to ensure safety of the protocol reserves.

I'd like to see a much slower ramp up, up to 500k for at least 6 months and after that do an evaluation for further deposits.

Another thing that we as the community can think about is the OHM vs gOHM discussion. This is a good example where gOHM has more utility as the collateral, while I think it's better for the protocol to focus market development on OHM.

Zeus I’m supportive of this approach and would like to see us be aggressive here in terms of roll-out (timing and volume). My thinking;

• The risk profile is fundamentally low (a point that won’t be lost on the author who adopts a risk first lens)
• This will make OHM a very attractive asset to hold as a reserve asset and should lead to a further tightening of circulating supply

0xFelix 500k-1m seems reasonable for a testing period. I'm surprised how many ohmies are comfortable with 15m being used immediately without audits or testing.

Churchee Yeah, I'd say that sound much more reasonable. Maybe even $1m to start, then an additional 0.5 after it's been around for a bit. Some form of audit is definitely necessary before I'd consider voting for the proposal in any capacity.

15M is far too much to risk on unproven contracts. When we launched OHM bonds with Bond Protocol we did a much smaller trial and that was just risking OHM, and those contracts were partially developed in-house - much lower risk profile than this. And the safety of a small test was proven there very quickly… I can't see how we should risk more than 500K here. With a peer-reviewed audit process conducted - I'd suggest we get the guys from Bond Protocol to advise and bring their learnings to the table.

Even if you're a god of thunder, I don't agree with deploying 15M into unaudited contracts. That's almost 10% of treasury holdings … let's start with smaller amount and use grants for audits.