Support Ohmieswap

To add a little flavour to my "let's go" comment above.

The absolutely most important thing for Olympus long term is Ohm usage outside of the core Olympus protocol functions. When there is external demand for Ohm, the protocol mechanics are really strong. The biggest long term protocol risk is lack of external adoption of Ohm.

The crypto economy is one of the toughest to date. Pace of innovations is insane, and what is new today can be hopelessly outdated six months from now. Olympus must keep innovating.

Olympus has critical mass. If there is a chance of incubating a new AMM with Ohm at the center then there is no reason to not pursue this imho. This is probably the most promising way to scale utility and demand for Ohm quickly.

Also, there are many ideas to further enhance the utility and value of Olympus protocol owned liquidity and treasury assets that requires close contact and aligned development efforts with an AMM.

Remember, this is not an internal Olympus project. I'd say the biggest risk comes from long term governance and not having full control of the project - but this is still a much better situation than with current AMMs.

I'm strongly in favour if risks are mitigated and compartmentalised as much as possible. Olympus must keep innovating and testing new ideas!

Wartull I definitely did not interpret it the way you are saying (Ohmieswap not being owned or funded by the DAO). Based on 0xMaki's tweet I don't think he interpreted it that way either.

We should more clearly communicate that:
1. This is not the DAO's project & this is not the DAO attempting to eat Sushi's market.
2. The DAO may incubate the project & other projects like it because they're good for the Olympus Ecosystem.
3. If Sushi or any other swap protocol wish to innovate & build cheaper, more efficient products for the Olympus Ecosystem we would incubate/support that too.
4. We owe it to our stakeholders to support innovation within our ecosystem & that's what we're doing.

Maybe there is better wording for the above. My point is bad PR could sink this project. Good PR can make it a success. Let's organize some good PR & let it rip.

I think there are several challenges with this proposal and how it was presented to the community.

1. Perception: The name of the proposal and the way it was presented give the impression that the DAO (or at least core DAO members) are behind and supportive of the proposal. This is obviously not the case, but key people outside the community believe it to be, and this presents a PR problem.

2. Putting the Cart (Tactics) Before the Horse (Strategy): Several key people in the conversation, including Wartull and cpt_zeke, have talked about the strategic reasons why creating a DEX or other mechanisms where OHM is at the center of trading activity is good long-term for the protocol. And there are good arguments for why this should be the case. However, in a consensus building process, I believe it is best to create consensus around the strategy and need for this approach before suggesting specific tactics.

For example, if core people in the DAO think that it is vital for OHM to begin considering ways to embed itself deeper into the DeFi ecosystem by having OHM be a major trading pair, then a conversation should be created where the community gets a chance to discuss whether this is possible, and agree that from a strategic perspective this makes sense. Then a vote could be held codifying this strategic focus and putting some mechanisms in place to investigate the best way to do this, which can include going to existing collaborators, such as Sushi to discuss a path forward. After this reporting back on findings and then having recommendations about the best way to proceed.

The issue with this proposal is that the sound strategic reasons for taking this approach are being conflated with a specific tactical execution, which many people are uncomfortable with, given its mercenary and anti-collaborative tenor.

This is too important a strategic issue for the long-term health of the protocol to tie our horse to a tactical execution that may or may not drive a specific benefit.

And I've said this during many conversations internally at the DAO, there tends to be too much focus on tactical execution and not enough of a focus on the medium- to long-term strategic benefits/risks of actions taken by the DAO of late.

If people want to have a conversation about the best means of embedding OHM deeply into the DeFi ecosystem and making OHM a default trading pair, then I think that conversation should be had -- separate from having to make a decision about a specific tactical execution, which may or may not be the right one at this moment.

As for the risk/benefit to the protocol, sure Olympus could throw some liquidity into this, but the benefits should be well-defined, expected outcomes communicated, and what's expected from "partners" clear. Just because you can do something, does not mean that you should.

I recommend that this particular tactical decision be tabled and a new conversation about recommended strategies for making OHM a preferred trading pair, with minimal PR damage and preserving the collaborative, welcoming reputation Olympus is known for, should begin.

After the community has agreed that this is an important priority for the protocol, we should come back to discuss various ways to get there, including working with existing collaborators such as Sushi, or using existing levers, such as bonded liquidity, instead of moving in a radical direction too quickly.

Sorry, but as it stands I'm not on board. Not saying it couldn't be great to do this in the future, and I applaud the enthusiasm, but there are several factors that make this a no for me, at least now:

1 - I think Olympus as a brand should focus on doing one or two things for the time being, and do them exceedingly well as it is been doing with Olympus Pro. Lately I've been seeing a lot of stuff popping up, and with the forks… TLDR is that having a ton of things attached to the brand dilutes its purpose.

2 - Diplomacy matters. I do not like burning bridges or bad blood with collaborators. I don't consider Sushi a "free-rider", it provides a service and takes a fee for it as it should. The terms could be re-negotiated if Olympus is in a better position to do so, making sure it remains a beneficial relationship for both parties. And if that were not possible, then yeah, perhaps another partnership or a new DEX could be a solution. But have we discussed these matters with Sushi? Is the nature of that partnership a concern for the DAO community at this time?

3- Sushi is established and reputable. I have no security concerns when I'm connecting my wallet to it. Sorry but I can't say the same thing here. Not asking you to doxx yourself, obviously, but merely pointing at the reality of the situation.

4- I don't see much added value for the crypto community. Just a very convenient fee arrangement for the DAO, which is great… But Olympus has been as successful as it has been because the ethos is cooperation and mutual benefit. It is solving a very crucial problem regarding liquidity. A non-established DEX with only only reason for existence (the benefit of Olympus) is just not enough. What I mean is this: Forget about Olympus for a second. Can a new DEX provide a better service than Sushi for the crypto community? Is there any extra convenience or features that would offset the lack of reputability at the outset? Or is this taking the brand into the direction of a closed, Apple-like ecosystem just because Olympus is getting relatively strong and it seems like it could? I want Olympus to be as open as possible whilst still maintaining the mechanics that make it successful.

Chauloko

this is a good post.. I really think point 1 is very important and something that we're trying to do too quickly.

First we had bonds. Now we sell bonds. We're now working on finding ways to utilise our treasury. We're now working on ways to incubate / seed projs that benefit OHM.

Those are 4 things, 2 which are basically brand new. Now is not the time to try to become a DEX. Let's do those first points very well, become market leaders in them and defend our position as the leader in these categories. Once we're more established and reputable in these areas, I believe we can throw around our weight a bit more and consider multiple avenues/revenue streams and inroads, but for now what we are doing is plenty.. I worry about talent dilution & loss of focus (trying to do 10 things well = doing nothing well) let's do these 4 I mentioned and see where we're at as far as bandwidth.

I also don't get good vibes from the OP poster, whereas for every other proposal I was thinking this is great. I voted NGMI.. okay cool poll.. ok well yeah I'm ngmi I guess

@ChefOmi thanks for taking the time to lay this out and speak more to the needs for a DEX for OlympusDAO.

As I understand it, the SushiSwap choice is due to the robustness of their smart contracts. With over $6.7B TVL (as of 11/3), SushiSwap has proven to be an industry leader for security and throughput.

It is quicker and cheaper deployment than building a DEX built from scratch. These contracts have gone through multiple audits and has held large amounts of capital without fail. A fork itself, the code follows much of Uniswap V2 with a modified UI/UX. This UI could be an exciting opportunity for branding for Ohmieswap.

In addition, Sushi has a robust treasury, prone to partnerships in DeFI. It would be a worthwhile consideration proposing a treasury swap, diversifying both treasuries, and adding SUSHI as a pair for liquidity pools.

This could be an interesting way to legitimize the project and attract new users from the SushiSwap ecosystem and beyond.

My only concern is the fee. 10% is gargantuan in crypto.

By keeping levels this high, it leaves room for new entrants to create a cheaper model. We hope you can adjust this fee structure and give more back to the community. In the industry, there will soon be a race to the bottom in fees.

We are excited to see more developments and integrations of OHM and partnerships throughout the wider DeFi community.

Wartull Wholly agree with this, we need to support projects that use OHM so that OHM usage increases, and this is a great first step towards becoming a digital reserve currency.

I'm also wondering @ChefOmi if you lend 1 OHM for 1 sOHM, how do you deal with potential IL since it will be pooled in order to avoid defaulting the loan?

Instead of OhmieSwap, what about potentially white-labelling a DEX, and having them set it up/run it? Olympus has great insights into bonding, hence the current success of Olympus Pro. We can take the same stance and let a team with solid DEX management and experience build and refine our DEX, while we pay a small amount to them. This would allow us to use the treasury for accelerating the development and provide real market value faster.

Should try to use Sushi to achieve the more important goals of use as router currency, the assumption of ETH being too hard to unseat as a default pair on Sushi is a poor one.

davoice321

A great post mirroring many of my own thoughts on the subject.

I'd like to know why the team has not yet weighed in on this topic on the forum to give their view

for POL in general, right idea imo but…

would not want to implement in the short term (though i voted gmi but not without reservations), ohm's goal as reserve currency does align with eventually having ohm/x pairs, i foresee it being akin to stablecoin pair dominance on CEX but fully decentralised

this needs to be treated carefully and slowly, and not as a meme or with hype, ohm doesnt need hype. side note: ohmieswap as a name is a turnoff for me, such a project is not for ohmies but for a wider base of non-ohmies to use.

Other ohm pairs on sushi and other dex's first, at some point in the next 2-5 years this can materialise with full support of the community, this is how long it should take for such an idea to fully mature

I share a lot of the hesitation expressed here.

Regarding community, it seems quite possible that nay saying oly forks and then forking sushi might be a bad look. Our argument, as I understand it is, that forking should bring a value add, to avoid 0 sum games. How would this sushi fork bring any value to the sushi community?

And bootstrapping liquidity for the project, remuneration for participating in bootstrapping, etc are interesting questions. If they're bootstrapping themselves and this project isn't associated with the Olympus DAO, then I suppose this post is more about community buy in?

For an apples to apple comparison, does anyone have any insight into what the 14m LP fees haul would've looked like on this proposed DEX?

I also want to echo, forking code doesn't equate to running anything successfully. The liquidity pools, trust, audits, website maintenance, bug fixes, etc are, in aggregate, daunting.

I think as a protocol we should really come together especially in the beginning to think about the implications/efficacy of an idea like this. Mistakes can feel punishing in this space and I really wonder if this is where valuable developer attention should be, forking SUSHI to create a DEX that uses OHM as a base pair, giving me BNT vibes + rivaling ETH, which I believe may be the most paired asset (assumption.)
The difference between our own DEX and SUSHI could be quantified by calculating just how much fees we would have gotten from an OHM-ETH swap on our DEX, compared to OHM-ETH swap on SUSHI right? Correct me if I am wrong here. Do we think this + projected volume makes this worth the expense, now?
It also feels like majority of OSX holders will be OHM holders and in some way this is siloing liquidity that could have otherwise just went to more OHM. For Olympus to be holding a majority of OSX feels similar to Olympus holding a majority of OHM, and we don't.
Just looking to express some thoughts, I've not put enough time thinking about this tbh.
For now I don't feel like this is a priority and could be put off for further thought and development. I'd like to propose that we focus our attention towards getting on L2/Arbitrum/Optimism ASAP and release protocol upgrades like V2, which would make bonding a lot more appealing and rewarding. Maybe we can even improve upon bond features for OlympusPro involving our partners. Example being ALCX-ETH bonds vest ALCX for a user over 7 days and the entire ALCX gets staked immediately at time of sale, and won't be claimable until full escrow period is up? Or, if we were on Optimism, create inverse synthetic sOHM which could allow for hedging price exposure?

cryptocartesius
Is this in a sense what RomeDAO will achieve by being on the DOT/Kusama network? I'm all for multiple projects striving for cross-chain exchanges but I'm unclear if this is what it'll truly achieve. Eg; seamlessly swapping OHM between Klima, Time, Rome etc.

Love this: "We will engage the debt functions in the treasury to allow users to leverage sOHM for pooled OHM. This will be explained in more detail in a different post but in practice, you as a staker would be able to take 1 sOHM, borrow 1 OHM against it, and pool that 1 OHM with another token on Ohmieswap. You keep your rebases and new OHM liquidity is created. (win, win)." WAGMI! <3 and Peace Love Union and Respect!

The concept looks very interesting.

我是我

100% support this! Sushi was extremely close to being bought by wonderland a few weeks back and their team seems a bit shaky these days. An ohm centric amm would be amazing but maybe think about adjusting the kitchen fees to no more than 3.3%?