• General

  • Request For Comments #2 - CEX Listing

bringing on masses needs staking to be available on bsc or similar due to fees. Cross chain then cex later

Would that listing be before or after Olympus v2 goes live? I guess CEXs would complicate the migration.

İ guess it may be difficult to figure it however it depends on the possible impact on the amount of fees we generate vıa sushiswap. İf the cex was to take away a large proportion of our income then it would be a net negative.

Perhaps we could negotiate a shared fee revenue based on volume per purchase of ohm and bonds.

    now that shorting is available on Polygon, I guess I'm neutral on CEX now

      Should OHM pursue listing on a centralized exchange?

      I don't think the DAO SHOULD do that, but if the centralized exchanges are approaching Olympus then it is definitely something to consider. Basically, IMO, not a priority but it is flattering and nice that it is happening.

      What exchanges are most interesting to our community?

      I don't personally favor one over the rest, I use what's convenient for each transaction, but never leave any crypto on CEXs, so I have no input on this.

      What are the perceived benefits of listing?

      As noted in the motivations, enhanced brand recognition, broader audience, facility of acquisition for people that are less exposed to the DeFi ecosystem.

      What are some red flags or considerations we should have as we pursue these activities?

      My main concern is security. Anything bad or shady happening to the liquidity pool the CEX is using can and would impact Olympus negatively. Reputability, security and accountability should be a priority.

      Should we wait for a specific market cap target? Previously 1B was stated

      OHM is top 50ish. I think that's enough for listing and has the potential to push it upward as well.

      What do you think about custodial staking?

      I think the acquisition of OHM via swap or bonding can be deferred to exchanges but staking should be done within the Olympus website so as to avoid any 3rd parties interfering with the core of the DAO mechanics

      RajLondon This is a key point we'd need to understand prior to moving forward imo. There might be a case to take a revenue cut to get better visibility and legitimacy though.

        It's a binary decision but nuanced. We would all benefit from seeing the pros/cons of this.

        Can we gain mass acceptance only from CEX listings?

        Can the Olympus Dao App be made more UI friendly - one click staking, bonding, etc. with gas fees taken care of?

        What do we lose by not listing - are we ultimately thinking CEX will approach an Ohm fork and steal our market penetration?

        How do we not negatively impact the Ohmie community? I love being on discord with my fellow ohmies.

        How vulnerable are we to manipulation given the low float we have currently (big issue on my mind)?

        Great points. I think the first step is to align on goals and then lay out each path to get to them. CEX v no CEX and pros and cons of each

        The only advantage I see to CEX listing is more exposure… however we already have that, top 50 MC and counting, we have enough exposure now and if more is needed we got a fantastic team that can focus on marketing and flood the space with interviews about the amazing concept and 3,3 etc.

        What we need is to work harder on onboarding new ohmies and non-defi folks. This requires smooth experience in the UI, homepage, staking, one click buy-stake, maybe an Olympus wallet that is "chrome extension" or mobile to make it easier.

        The team so far did a fantastic job on the Playgrounds simulation, discord resources, etc. but we can put more resources into a streamlined user experience ..

        One last option, partnership with existing reputable on-ramps/custodial, Nexo? Swissborg? etc. to add Ohm and allow people to transfer fiat into their accounts there, buy ohm and stake… these are different than CEX I believe…

        First time commenter, interesting proposal but I'm against this, for now. My views are that this would:

        1. Decrease revenues received from LPs, which in my opinion provides a layer of protection to the downside as the protocol makes money when volatility arises
        2. Increase correlation to other tokens given the ease of trading on CEX, as well as the amount of algorithms and market making bots that run on CEXes
        3. Decrease incentive to bond, as acquiring on a CEX is easier and quicker.
        4. Reduce staking %, as many will leave their OHM on the exchange

        For these reasons, I'm out for now. Protocol and price action are what we're looking for, wouldn't want a bunch of bots and wash trading to take away from the bigger picture.

          How will CEX acquire Ohm? Through the bonding program? Will that not accelerate the circulating Ohm supply and bring about a reduction of the current emission APY much more quickly? This also would dilute the early (read: pre-CEX) ohmies very heavily would it not?

          Remember when Binance used the coins in their custody to vote on behalf of the owners without their knowledge… what if they do the same with Ohm?

          In order for 3,3 to hold, it's important holders of OHM tokens have access to staking, otherwise the game theoretic advantages to holding over selling won't apply. Correct me if I'm wrong in making that statement. As a result of this, I think it's important for staking to be possible on the big CEXs where OHM trades - so that anyone holding spot OHM is incentivized to stake just as holders of OHM on chain are.

          I'm for exploring options. Especially if they would add native staking it can be a net positive. Take into account these type of listings typically take months, it would be wise to hire a market maker to see what type of exchanges we could be listed on.

          I think exploring options makes sense would like to have clarity on how the exchanges are going to bootstrap their Ohm liquidity whether it's buying bonds (would be against them purely doing this because it puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of current ohm holders and would be unfair) or by buying from the LPs which is fine, but maybe it makes sense to do a combination of both to keep the price stable?

          Also if a CEX were to gain a majority position in Ohm it would compromise the decentralized spirit of the protocol, but again they would need a ton of capital to do so…

          AoshichanX what do you mean, could you please provide more details here?

            1. are they asking for any special deals for listing us? (like discounted OTC trades?) then No. if they are bonding or market buying then we obviously can't stop them.

            2. I'd rather it happens much later in our growth stage when we have less price volatility, CeX listing imo will exacerbate the price volatility, and since a lot of that trading will be happening off-chain, we won't even benefit from the LP fees like we do on DEX.


              so my overall leaning is towards no.

            To be honest, I'm very conflicted on this. On the one hand having CEX listings would be great for exposure and it could attract a lot of new users. On the other hand, it has all the known downsides: we don't get any trading fees, they probably won't offer the same staking rewards as we do (meaning users would be diluted which could alienate them from the product), and it usually - at least in the past - required some backrooming and discounted OTC deals to get started.

            So I wouldn't be against it, but I think we need to be very selective in which CEX we select and what type of deal we make with them. If listing requires discounted OTC deals it would be a no from my side. If it requires enlisting a market maker on our side then I think that warrants a separate discussion. But if the CEX is willing to list OHM without any "shady" details and offer staking rewards to their users then I think we could explore that.

            In short, I think we should be open to CEX listings but I don't think we should necessarily pursue them.

            4 days later

            OK, I was mentioning this in the chat channels… instead of CEX let us work on something else >>

            Ohm needs the masses .. so imagine we release an OHM wallet ... that does in-wallet Fiat On-Ramp (credit card or debit etc.) and swaps… easy path to ohm: (1) install wallet, (2) use card to buy Dai .. (3) click button swap dai > wsOHM ..

            This wallet needs to be on AVAX or FTM or ARB since the fees are minimal .. so downside is Credit Card fees for fiat to crypto .. infinitely lower than the ETH gas fees and the frustration of approve/stake/swap etc.

            This to me is better than both CEX or DEX ideas for now .. sure later we can look at the Ex's options .. but a wallet directly to the people no middle party