citizen_wayne Thanks for the detailed response. Some notes:
Strategies simply put unused capital to work and are entirely optional. From Olympus' perspective this can help ensure that any funds that aren't being borrowed out on the terms that they set are still being productive in some way. If the Olympus team or the community feels that it's not worth the effort, they can choose not to use the strategies.
Vendor is completely written from the ground up and is not simply just rehashed Ruler V2 contracts. We encourage comparisons between the two protocols and are open to feedback and criticism of our proposal, but I don't see the value in minimizing the effort we've put into building this protocol. Ironically, at Vendor's inception, Olympus was the first project we spoke to. Originally it was literally built from the ground up with Olympus in mind.
Even with the "hefty fees" of V1, the pool is still seeing high utilization. It seems to be the case that a decent number of Ohmies feel that this is a service that they are willing to use, and have been using for the last 3 months. We have not heard any complaints from anyone in the community so far, so I'd say that it's been a success so far. To be fair, as far as unproven protocols go, Cooler is just as unproven as Vendor V2 is. We have no issue with the existence of Cooler and are open to coexisting, but I think it's disingenuous to imply that Cooler loans are somehow more battle tested than Vendor V2 simply by virtue of it being launched by Olympus.
The reasoning behind listing gOHM instead of OHM is that based on OIP-133 the staking rate of OHM will be gradually reduced to 0% thus removing the benefits of holding gOHM over OHM. Based on the wording and outcome of the OIP, it seems that the community would like to use OHM in place of gOHM. From our perspective either token works, and being that Vendor is permissionless, Olympus is free to deploy a pool with either token. We do not gain any extra benefits from having OHM listed over gOHM. We simply want to list the asset that gives the most utility to token holders. If it's shown that gOHM is the better option, then we have no issue with that being the collateral token.
Again, thank you for your detailed response, and as I said we are open to feedback and criticism of our proposal.