RFC: Clearing House Partnership with Vendor Finance

Thank you for taking the time to write this up @0xTaiga, really appreciate it. I think it makes sense for the community to evaluate both proposals and see which one would be preferable for a pilot programme (or perhaps test both protocols in practice).

The advantage of Vendor to me seems that it was already designed with Olympus in mind initially and that it is audited and used successfully in practice - i.e. the contracts are already (somewhat) battle tested on the Arbitrum deployment. If the community would like to proceed with a "clearing house" solution I would be in favour of using Vendor as well, considering the history between both protocols.

Thank you for sharing this proposal, can you give more detail about the inverse pools in the works?

Thanks for the thoughtful proposal and considered response against the other option on the table. This, like Cooler, seems to have lots of merit for the ecosystem - but the suggest capital to be deployed seems much more reasonable as a trial in this case.

I suggest we do what we did with OHM bonds (testing Dutch Auction and Gnosis) and run a trial in tandem of both, at low volume, to compare their merits. e.g. $250k of each say for a total of$ 500k.

Ohmies - what do y'all think about having the Vendor team in our Discord for an AMA?

0xTaiga Question: We already have a proposal with Alchemix where users can take out self paying loans with zero possibility of liquidation or losses since, it's self paying. For my own understanding, how is this better? Or what benefits can this offer that Alchemix can't?

0xTaiga love this well-structured proposal and the very reasonable ask of 100k to 500k against gOHM. This seems like a very good proposal to me.

woofwoof So as I understand it, the yield from the Alchemix self-repayment comes from the ARR, which would mean that your OHM collateral/loan position would be redeemed with OHM, rather than gOHM. This means that the inflationary yield accrues to OHM in the future, when you eventually recover it from the Alchemix vault. You can presumably swap and deposit alOHM-OHM to create up to 2x leverage, but the end result will be realized in future OHM (which by its nature does not inherently include the ARR).

In contrast, a Vendor pool would accept gOHM as collateral in exchange for DAI to be used now. This allows the borrower (community) to continue to realize the ARR inherent in the gOHM wrapper as well as to pay an interest rate to borrow DAI (and use that for whatever, including creating leverage by buying gOHM and borrowing more DAI - the maximum ratio will equal 1/(1-LTV), where LTV is set by the lender, in this case, the OHM treasury).

Does this make sense?

Great proposal. The deal between Incubator and Vendor fell through because of changes in the DAO and Incubator team specifically. The team and product at Vendor were viewed in a very favourable light by the Incubator team at the time.

I would personally love to see this proposal pass. $500K is a reasonable initial allocation.

0xTaiga Very much in favour of this proposal.

A 500k pilot budget for mainnet deployment will be a great start in my opinion to get the ball rolling and see the level of demand. Then hopefully once cross chain native OHM is available in the coming months the possibilities will be endless.

Don_G_Lover This was my opinion also. I believe Zeus has parked his however after he received clear feedback on audits and is looking at how he undertakes that so there may be delay on that option?

When does this move to snapshot. More utility!

Tuyệt vời

It was interesting!