I am voting against this proposal.
Abstract: Lobis and REDACTED are both CRV/CVX focused DAO’s that are seeking approval as OHM forks. Although Olympus seeks to be a neutral player in the Curve Wars, I believe that approving two projects that are nearly identical detracts from the value proposition that Olympus DAO offers, for the following reasons:
There are many OHM forks across several chains that have not reached out for official approval. These forks lose out on the Olympus community’s support, resources, and overall benefit. Founders that do reach out for approval to be an official OHM fork, and give up a portion of their treasury, should be protected by Olympus DAO in any way possible. I believe that one way Olympus DAO can incentivize and protect projects that seek official approval is to offer them some runway to prove themselves, without offering the same support to a similar or derivative project.
REDACTED offers a far better incentive to the Olympus DAO with “20% of pBTRFLY supply (20 million) with a 10% supply share” and “5% fee on $BTRFLY and 5% fee on the revenue generated from external tokens bonded.” (Source: https://snapshot.org/#/olympusdao.eth/proposal/0x33538881cc32621825be22ebd21856951651cff12b9cd6d27379302183665605).
Conclusion: Approving Lobis detracts from the incentive to become an official Olympus DAO fork due to the fact that a similar project, REDACTED, has shown a greater willingness to contribute to Olympus DAO via token and revenue share. This proposal will affect future founders' decisions to become an official Olympus DAO fork and the legitimacy of the Olympus DAO brand.
Disclaimer: I am a degen yield farmer. OHMie. I plan on aping into REDACTED due to the reasons I have outlined, as well as their ability to cultivate a greater community (imo). I get that Olympus wants to make money on both sides of the Curve War, and maybe there is room for collaboration in these projects, but the inherent conflict hasn’t been addressed publicly and should be before this proposal goes through.