- Edited
For of course - but we should also immediately deploy nominal amount to Uniswap to capture that natural flow instead of leaving that money on the table
Also we should deploy in a jUSDC pair given our special relationship with the Jonesies
For of course - but we should also immediately deploy nominal amount to Uniswap to capture that natural flow instead of leaving that money on the table
Also we should deploy in a jUSDC pair given our special relationship with the Jonesies
Full support. A major blocker for a lot of holders to utilize their holdings has been the expensive transaction fees seen on Ethereum. Excited to see what gets spun up when this barrier no longer exist.
pleased to see Olympus pushing deeper into Arbitrum
2 comments from me;
any reason why we keep using ETH/wETH pairings with OHM/gOHM when the entire network will be moving from wETH to an LSD version of ETH?
I recall there is big push from the lads at frax to estable frxETH as the successor
ruby33 On point #1: We've been in touch with them for a while and discussed creating an OHM pair there. The take away from those conversations is that it makes more sense for both parties to evaluate that once we're actually live on Arbitrum. With this OIP we have the flexibility to migrate some liquidity post launch if it is worthwhile for the protocol to do so.
0xFelix leggooooooo I'm super excited for this kick off.
Timing. The operative words you used here were, "will be moving" so we need something for the tactical near term. In the strategic long term, we can modify LP to match market needs if we're in a fully LSD world.
Thanks team, great to see progress on this. To that point OIP-136 for Cross-Chain promised an audit, can that be linked in this OIP pls so we can see those boxes being ticked?
And in terms of the selection of assets, while I'd rather not USDC I understand the chain's liquidity dictates that to some sense, but in future if we state things of the ilk of, "…after evaluating the volumes on Arbitrum One. DAI volume was too low to have it act as a core liquidity pair." is it possible to actually give these numbers or link to any basic workings so we aren't reliant on these statements alone. (I assume its not significant extra work if you've done the math on a napkin somewhere… )
Hey Thomas,
Thanks for reaching out with the questions.
Working on getting the requested audit to share here.
To the question regarding stable liquidity on Arb One, please see: