• Proposal
  • OIP-6: Wrapped OHM and Improved Staking

Summary: Enable sOHM for use on other protocols through a wrapped wOHM, and prevent rebase-hopping in staking.

Background: Perhaps the two most prevalent improvement requests have been: enable sOHM for use on other protocols, and prevent users (especially LPs) from staking right before a rebase and unstaking right after. A composable version of sOHM means it can be used as collateral for borrowing, for example in a Fuse pool. The prevention of rebase-hopping means more rewards for committed stakers.

Abstract: This proposal aims to approve an implementation of the staking contract that allows users to claim sOHM, the rebasing token we have today, or wOHM, a static token that is composable with other protocols. This new contract would also require new stakers to wait until a rebase has occurred before they can claim their sOHM or wOHM. Through this implementation, we can also enable Hades on the staking contract.

Motivation: Enable new use cases and features for OHM, and ensure fairness of reward distribution.

Note: This contract is currently undergoing an audit. We will not deploy it until that audit has completed. Implementing this will also require a migration; stakers will need to unstake from the current contract and restake in the new one.

This would be how we integrate OHM into Fuse and other protocols. A wrapped version of sOHM is required for these integrations. We can alternatively drop the rebasing sOHM entirely; however, I feel that the optionality is good, since many will not utilize other protocols with their sOHM and may appreciate the natively increasing balance.

Timeline: We would deploy this change and initialize the fuse pool on Monday, May 17th.

For: Implement this new staking contract, keep sOHM and wOHM.
For: Implement this new staking contract, drop sOHM for only wOHM.
Against: Keep the current staking contract, do something different.

Preliminary Polling

    This proposal makes a lot of sense to me. Anything that can protect the integrity of the pool and prevent abuse should definitely be considered. One rebase cycle is not a big deal.

    Can't we have the staked ohm also be wOhm? starting to have too many tokens. aOhm, pOhm, sOhm, wOhm, Ohm...

    For some clarity:
    Wrap 1 sOHM and I get back 1 wOHM.
    1 sOHM = $100 at time of wrapping so wOHM = $100.
    Rebases happen and now sOHM is 1.1 and it's equivalent wOHM = $110

    Stated another way: wOHM * Current Index = sOHM

      If you wrap sOHM, woll the wOHM quantity increase on each rebase like sOHM?

      JFry4 Are you stating that as fact or inquiring if that is how it would work?

        Anyone have thoughts on whether we should whitelist or blacklist protocols using wOHM?

        Whitelist: a list of allowed recipients of wOHM
        Blacklist: a list of OHM receipients we do not allow

          I vote for what the smart people want

          JFry4 100% vote for a whitelist and here's why:

          If you have a blacklist that means there are some types of dexs, contracts, etc. that you don't want sOHM going into. If that is the case then you will fail to stay ahead of forks of these contracts. Blocking sushiswap and uniswap only to have rugswap pop up in the middle of the night means wrapped sOHM will end up everywhere you were trying to prevent it from being.

            Jawesome Based on this UI - I believe Staking keeps it simple for some newer users and Wrapping is available for advanced users. Fundamentally its all the same, but helpful to have them separated from a UX perspective.

            If a user decides to move from staking to wrapping - we should have some function else they will pay lots of sad gas fees.