OIP-138: Deploy Cross-Chain Native OHM

JaLa

Summary

Approve deployment of native OHM implementations on EVM compatible chains. Initially focus launch efforts on Arbitrum, which OHM has found most traction to date outside of mainnet.

Motivation

OIP-136 recognized cross-chain OHM as a key project for the DAO and highlighted the some of the benefits for the DAO. Native deployments will, among other benefits:

Reduce reliance on bridging, a potential attack vector
Increase trust in the protocol
Enhance omni-chain liquidity by removing fragmentation caused by distinct token contracts for each chain
Improve protocol on-chain accounting

Implementation
This OIP seeks approval to deploy native OHM across EVM compatible chains. The implementation entails certain pieces of the Olympus v3 contracts on each chain and utilizes Layer Zero for messaging across chains, enabling minting and burning of native OHM.

From a partnership and communications perspective, the go-to-market will be focused initially on establishing deep liquidity and integrations on Arbitrum.

Synthetic gOHM bridged via Synapse will continue to exist and the DAO will work to ensure a smooth transition where applicable. Ultimately, the intention is focus solely on native OHM.

0HMBurgler

May be a stupid question, but is V3 up and running? If so, what's it's main differences from V2?

Thanks

Relwyn

0HMBurgler

Hey there! Yes, v3 has been running since the launch of of RBS. It's fundamentally different in its structure than v2. This might help explain the mechanic:

https://github.com/fullyallocated/Default/blob/master/README.md

Mark11

Will there be more info on the security assumptions?

Relwyn

Mark11

Hey Mark! Yeah, there are ongoing discussions around this because it's a very dense topic.

Largely, you can break the security considerations into two vectors: Economic and Technical.

The each require considerations to derive assumptions around. Either way, I'd love to have an enthusiastic and ongoing discussion around this. I'll work on getting a thread spun up in Discord if one doesn't exist.

thomasscovell

Hi team, i'm not sure what we're being asked to approve here?

"Approve deployment of native OHM implementations on EVM compatible chains. Initially focus launch efforts on Arbitrum".

It feels like this OIP is giving very broad powers to treasury, for something that should be an initial trial? Either we are approving "deployment of native OHM implementations on EVM compatible chains" - which seems broad and risky. Or we are trialing the OIP-136 contracts via a trial on Arbitrum?

It seems to me we should reframe this OIP around a trial of these contracts on Arb and not grant broad deployment powers via it now.

To that end, OIP-126 mentions, "Audit - went into audit last week" - do we have an update on how this went?

It's a "no" from me until we reframe this as a trial and release audit details. Thanks for the great work team, but we need more focus to move forward with this.

JaLa

thomasscovell Thanks for the comments and questions. To clarify, this is to approve deployment the contracts, not any reserves. Any reserve deployment will be subject to another proposal (which will be the case imminently for Arbitrum). That said, I am open to narrowing the scope of the contract deployment to Arbitrum and Optimism (there is interest in native OHM there as well) though I don't believe it is necessary to do so.

This approval is pending completion of the audit, which is expected to be completed in the next week or so. I don't have details on how the audit is going right now but I do know that the contracts were reviewed by LZ and the audit is being done by a firm that is very familiar with their architecture. Target launch for deployment would be in 10 days to 2-week timeframe, that is why we wanted to start this conversation now.

thomasscovell

JaLa Thanks sir, thats all clear. Thanks to you and the team for all the work.

0HMBurgler

Relwyn

Thanks for the reply. Were V2 holders automatically migrated over to V3? Thanks for the info, but it reads like it's a different language to me so ..

Relwyn

0HMBurgler

Yessir. There was no migration needed from the user base to get to v3. The only user initiated migration was v1 to v2.

0HMBurgler

Relwyn

Ok thanks. Confusing since on coinmarketcap and other sites, there is no separate V3, like there is for 1 & 2

Relwyn

0HMBurgler

That's because the ERC20 Token didn't change (And why you didn't have to do anything to convert). v3 all happened at the contract level. =)

hodlmao

If we're here to vote about arbitrum, then it's yes from my side, but it's should be stated in the OIP title, otherwise it's vague and allow to deploy everywhere.

Relwyn

hodlmao

Thank you sir. We discussed this internally and see where we've accidently created confusion.

This OIP was purely to get community approval to deploy on Arbitrum and other EVM Chains but, didn't define terms. It was more a go / no go and then I have OIP-139 drafted (Not posted just yet) which qualifies the terms of deployment to Arbitrum specifically.

That created confusion as it makes this appear more greenfield (And has more power) than intended. We will circle back on this to help create clarity.