json I agree, CVX is a crucial defi asset and needs to be added

    As Brain's number one simp I tend to agree with everything written in this before even reading it😂

    But to be real this is a no-brainer!

    and kudos to Json and Brian for this well-written proposal ❣

      Vehemently yes. Staking a claim in Curve governance through Convex is the natural progression for Olympus' long-term goals. Incredibly limited downside and infinite upside. This is one of the most strategic assets we could add to the treasury. Awesome job Brian and Json.

      NBS Thank you 🙂 , but to be clear, multiple policy members worked on this; I don't think its fair to them to say it was only us, its a collective effort.

        Fully support. The sooner we start acquiring CVX, the better given multiple other protocols have begun discussions to do the same. Votium payouts have been mooning and this is only expected to continue given the efficiency of protocol's bribing vs. LM incentives with the additional tailwind of Curve v2 which will add a theoretically unlimited amount of additional pools to bribe.

        This is the most obvious move the protocol could have taken, and I'm just curious why this wasn't proposed weeks ago? Feels like a pretty big oversight to wait until every other protocols wants to start acquiring CVX before we start to talk about putting out bonds. Is there some form of bureaucracy standing in the way? How can we make this process more efficient moving forward?

        In case it's not obvious, I vote "yes".

          Its a very good direction for us and Im all in favor. Long live Olympus.

          This proposal is really interesting but I don't think it makes sense for Olympus. As a reserve currency, we should acquire in priority assets with a risk free value, and OHM has not been designed to be simply dumped against any other governance token. This sends a bad sign to the market, that we are short OHM and long CVX.

          Furthermore, aquiring governance power over Curve is not interesting in the medium term for the DAO as OHM is a currency that is not bond by a peg, so there will never be any OHM/USD stable pool on Curve that we can incentivise.

          Probably interesting for a separate project, but do not think it makes sense for OHM.

            This was a brilliantly crafted proposal!!! This makes total sense and will drive value for the protocol over time. Wholehearted yes from me!

            LeTube

            In the future, when we eventually reach stabilization phase, and OHM can be utilized truly like a currency. Suddenly, Ohmies can now LP and utilize their OHM other than staking. Once this occurs, we can create stable pairs on curve, with their bi or tri-crypto pools in the future. This means we can do OHM-X pairs on there, where X is any stable asset, and get little IL from them.

            By the time we reach there, I fear that we won't own a significant amount of governance power to divert CRV rewards with our gauges, meaning we'd have to incentivize it via our bonds, and not with external actors doing so.

                Brian33
                Ok, didn't get that initially. However, I feel it's a bit risky to bet on Convex. They are doing really well right now, but they are putting Curve at risk as what they did is basically a hostile takeover of Curve. I think Curve needs to be decentralised. It's one of the most important protocols of DeFi, and what is happening today is very concerning.
                I would be extremely surprised that nothing happens to counter their power in the next months. Probably new protocols, our new architectures of the other whitelisted protocols (Yearn and Stake DAO) to counter their attack.

                Therefore, if we do a long term bet on Convex while we can't really know what will happen in the future around Curve wars, we put ourselves at risk of accumulating a token at a very high price but then degrading our backing per OHM.

                If we want to accumulate future power on Curve, I think it would be wiser to acquire CRV directly…

                    Absolutely yes. Another solid project and asset to add to the treasury. Starting to look like an index of the leading projects and assets in crypto.

                    LeTube
                    I agree with your points, perhaps both would be best, acquiring both CVX and CRV as a hedge. looking at it at a capital efficiency standpoint, CVX has a higher governance power per dollar invested compared to CRV. I also believe that by acquiring CVX, it would prevent that takeover you mentioned by being the biggest CVX whale out there.

                        Brian33 @json How much is required to gain us a seat at the table? Has an analysis been done to determine a realistic % required? Something like x% governance holders vote on average so Olympus should aim to accrue y amount?

                          SMARF This is the most obvious move the protocol could have taken, and I'm just curious why this wasn't proposed weeks ago? Feels like a pretty big oversight to wait until every other protocols wants to start acquiring CVX before we start to talk about putting out bonds. Is there some form of bureaucracy standing in the way? How can we make this process more efficient moving forward?

                          In case it's not obvious, I vote "yes".

                          I agree. Why did this proposal take forever? Instead of leading the pack, OHM is now just a "+1" in the race for CVX, which has considerably appreciated since.

                          Is the DAO becoming too bloated / complacent?

                              Adding a comment here. MrLoop: I don't agree that Olympus is getting too complacent or bloated, I think being extremely careful about the types of assets Olympus takes into back OHM/be minted to generate OHM is warranted. Especially in the current legal/regulatory enviornment and given my view of OHM as a "crypto-native" censorship resistant asset that can be viewed as reliable and protected from regulatory, legal black swan events.

                              Regarding CVX as a bond, I was asked to comment on the regulatory risks in the risk assessment provided above.

                              As I said in my comment about UST, ", I tend to be fairly conservative when considering new assets to utilize to mint OHM. I am especially careful about taking on more and more censorship-prone or regulatory risky assets in to support OHM's backing. My concern is that, over time, the composition of assets backing OHM can reach (in an aggregate share) a significant minority of OHM's backing, increasing smart contract, censorship and regulatory risks to the protocol."

                              CVX are Convex Finance's governance token, which derives its value from revenue generated from locked CVX. Thus Convex Finance's health is linked to the overall health and longevity of Curve Finance.

                              While I'm a big fan of Curve, I feel it is one of the most regulatory and legally exposed protocols in DeFi, and in fact is a large systemic risk to DeFi given how much DeFi protocols rely on Curve for their operations. The largest risk is Curve's various liquidity pools, which have large amounts of centralized stablecoins, including BUSD, USDT and USDC.

                              If Curve experiences a black swan event in that USDT or USDC are censored, or USDT is found to be financially non-viable, this would have various knock-on effects in DeFi, which could not only lead to a multi-year DeFi bear market, but make Curve a non-functional entity.

                              Your view of whether or not a regulatory/economic black swan event in DeFi caused by Curve will impact your view of whether utilizing CVX to bond OHM is a good idea. If you think this possibility is low to non-existant, you'll view CVX as a relatively low-risk asset.

                              If you view CVX has highly exposed to this scenario, then you'll view it as a high-risk asset.

                              In terms of securing CVX to control CVX's governance, I view this as a short-term strategic move, given the uncertainty of DeFi in the face of increasingly harsh stablecoin and AML/KYC regulation that is coming down very shortly for stablecoins, expecially given recent moves by the U.S. Treasury to dis-incentivize peer-to-peer transactions and the FATF guidance which looked at stablecoins carefully

                              Should Olympus Take on CVX Bonds?

                              I view CVX as a high risk asset in this context. I understand the value of acquiring CVX from a short-term strategic perspective, but would recommend putting a much lower target (3-5% of RFV) so that 10% of OHM's backing is not vulnerable to the legal, regulatory and censorship risks outlined above.

                                  davoice321 I align with you regarding the issues of regulatory issues, and that CVX is a high risk asset in those terms, but I think the risk of falling behind with accruing governance heavily outweighs those risks. The Curve ecosystem is a 20 billion TVL protocol, and it's setting itself up to become the defacto stableswap and like-stable asset exchange. CVX will only get more scarce as emissions reduce significantly (30m CVX is minted for the first 100m CRV locked in Convex, only 10m CVX will be minted for the next 100m CRV, etc etc). The potential for us to own a significant portion of the pie dwindles as time goes on, and I think now is the best time to start.