OIP-45: Proteus

HumbleFarmer

Could you elaborate on why we can gauge the interest for the protocol on each chain this way?

SpacemanJeff

HumbleFarmer I assume they intend to see how much trade activity and/or organic adds to the LP happen once the pools deploy. Or something along those lines. Chains with markedly more demand would be better candidates to start bonding programs on.

My intuition is that the chains which already have notable forks running (e.g. AVAX) will be our best bet. Will be sweet to finally start eating their lunch 😋

My only note is we should take consideration of protocols that have taken synergistic approaches as forks, like RomeDAO. They do benefit from increased access to OHM, and as long as they remain friendly I'm less inclined to actively compete against them than I am some others that I won't name (but have implied earlier in this post). Instead we should foster a symbiotic relationship with them on such chains and dominate the rest.

liam3

Zeus this is certainly an exciting plan. What is missing here that would provide more confidence in the plan is what the transition to POL looks like? This is different to normal LPs in the sense that the protocol would be owning a stake in it's existing market cap expansion.

Not sure if there is anyone in the policy team that can comment further on this?

fig

@Zeus $100MM this proposal is massive - thanks for clarifying it is a maximum, not a target.

Alluded to below, the total cost of the program should decrease, reassuring more stakeholders.

Zeus This budget should serve as a maximum and not a target expenditure. It should be added that supply is projected to ~5x over the same term.

These are important details for the program and the future of OlympusDAO. I was intrigued by your choice of other chains, they seem sensible - how do you form this list of a mix of L1's and L2's?

Will the budget be proportionally distributed across these other networks?

Love the name 😉

woofwoof

Zeus Would you need to actually sell 120,000 OHM's from mainnet to move into other L2's? If so, won't that tank the price of OHM?

papiofficial

Papi here from Harmony and an ohmie. We completely support this 100%. LFG!

ludwig1707

for

jeffreyepsteineth

yum!

CryptoChaser

Definitely yes. Bring the goodness of OHM to other networks.

SirChrOHMe33

me thinks let's go!

RagingBull

Definitely in favor of this proposal.

Shipmate

I support and will vote in favor of this proposal.

CryptoCorrado

Zeus I understand where you're coming from, but I still think that this might be overkill in time and money just to see what sticks. The DAO could have a good idea for which chain there's appetite to deploy on based on community input plus the volume being done on these other chains. On Avalanche for example, there's already a presence of wsOHM and forks like Wonderland and Snowbank driving most of Avalanche's volume. I'd be more keen on doing comprehensive treasury rollouts to L1s like Avalanche to keep Olympus' core offering intact.

Also, going back to my previous post above, Olympus could leverage a solution like CCIP to build cross-chain capabilities using a universal messaging interface that works across most chains. This would eliminate the need for Olympus developers to write custom code for each chain-specific integrations and allow the treasury to function across many different chains with protocol-owned liquidity.

IANature

Yes

Time to grOHMe!

oasising

How OHMs differentiate it with the Forks on other chains? We are fighting on their terrains.

loganmalloy5

Im all for this! LFG

nfcarloacutis

Add NEAR protocol to the list of chains

b05crypto

Zeus Love it.

Was just guiding someone today to buy wsOHM, because they didn't want to pay fees on main. Definitely think this is a great bootstrap for now and gets more people engaged with the project.

jdarryl

Zeus for sure…in Zeus we trust, in OHM we trust in sustainability we trust

jdarryl

Near Protocol

« Previous Page Next Page »