• Proposal

  • OIP-49: Olympus Give Lighthouse Partnership with Gitcoin

wollemiPine Thanks for your forthright response.

I want to start by saying that in regards to the question of advertising, that is not an easy 'yes or no' question. But if someone requested a half a million dollar advertising budget for OHM on a yearly basis, I would almost certainly be against it.

I hear what you're saying about Gitcoin grants and attracting talent. However, the methodology by which these donations are paid for matters. If this OIP were to propose setting up a system for selling bonds, from which a portion of revenue was paid to charity, I don't think you would see nearly the opposition against it that you currently see (by my count the votes are almost evenly split at this point). But it should always be up to individual Ohmies to opt in and participate with donations to charity, and the treasury funds that we all rely on to keep the protocol healthy should not be used for these kind of things.

I would like to suggest the authors scrap the proposal and instead draft a new one to enable OHM to sell 'charity bonds', which is what I understand Tyche was designed to do anyways. That way each Ohmie can decide whether they want to donate to charity, and which one best fits their principles. We could even have Gitcoin be a 'default selection option', as its far less controversial than either of the other two.

    I love it, but I would love to see Olympus in its final stage before allocating resources towards this. This is around 12hrs of revenue, I'm all for this if we decrease the allocation by 50%.

    I find it okay if this topic causes some division within the Ohmie community around charity and responsibility if that weeds out zero-sum and win-lose thinking people. There's no need to replicate the greediness and egoism so prevalent in TradFi.

    Olympus is built on open source and exists because of open source. Olympus DAO has received plenty of value from open source and generated even more on top of it. People have been working for years and decades on the foundation that Olympus builds upon. Giving back to open source is a no-brainer as otherwise we'd just be taking without giving anything in return. Win-lose.

    It's the same with climate concerns. Olympus is built on and exists because of Ethereum. It derives value directly from Ethereum's PoW which as long as its there has a negative climate effect. Just like with open source it should be a no-brainer to compensate for the value received and damage caused in the process.

    Longevity is surely debatable as there was no value received (that I know of). At least it's for a public good. It would make sense to move it to its own proposal or handle it differently.

    The culture of Olympus is, among other properties, highly collaborative and assumes responsibility where it's due. This OIP, with some clarification and a few adjustments, reflects and reinforces that.

    We shouldn't get deterred by the words charity and donation. It's not one way. It's a two way impact that's just not as obvious as financial revenue streams.

    Also, this shouldn't be a discussion about individuals' choices about charity. An individual's decisions should be about individual's impact and responsibilities.

    This proposal is about the responsibilities and impact of Olympus as a whole. Both the past (open source value, climate impact) and the future.

    On top of that we all benefit from advances in those areas. Especially financially given the success of Olympus.

    As Balaji put it: win and help win.

    I fully support the initiative and also think the ROI we get from this initiative is less measured in terms of funding flowing back, but how Olympus is perceived in terms of credibility and long-term sustainability will be positively impacted by this OIP! Also, it enables to use OHM as a funding vehicle for non DeFi Assets which is a big plus.

    Voted against because otherwise we'll be voting on dishing out the treasury to anyone who comes with a need for liquidity. Let's not turn ourselves into the uni grants program (which has been a total shitshow)

      These should be projects building on top of OHM and donating staking gains at best, treasury is for backing the protocol, not for charity. We SHOULD have some charitable program though funded through OHMies who want to contribute personally.

      here is an alternative: a better feature is a PoolTogether type pool for sOHM which users can enter like the 3,3 together pool that donates rebases to charity for the lock period instead of a random winner in the pool.

        I’m against OIP-50 because Olympus Dao is not charity and we don’t want to open a door for individual to siphon money out of the treasury.

        As a point of clarification, the request is to initiate utilization of the Olympus Give infrastructure for DAO OHM. This does not relate to the treasury as these are funds used for contributors or marketing efforts and strategic partnerships.

        The DAO currently holds 955k OHM. The aforementioned request is 0.06% (6bps) of the current DAO holdings. Only 2bps would be “non-recoverable.”

        https://etherscan.io/address/0x245cc372C84B3645Bf0Ffe6538620B04a217988B

        Additionally, the $300k notional is a no-loss, non-custodial redirection of yield. The DAO will recoup the requested OHM and Gitcoin will only receive rebases.

        ptp1600 fundamentally this is the architecture of Olympus Give. This activity is to highlight its power and our strength in the ecosystem.

        Again, this proposal does not affect the backing of OHM or allow users access to the treasury.

            helkem0 FrenDAO is another part of the Olympus ecosystem and will likely use the Olympus Give infrastructure.

            Olympus Give is intentionally extensible in this way. OlympusDAO seeks to highlight and bootstrap the calibration and framing of this open ended tool through a partnership with Gitcoin.

              Responding about "do this yourself" - that's exactly what Olympus Give will enable.

              From our original Tyche project spec:

              Background: Tyche is a system for lossless crowdfunding and yield redirection built on top of Olympus Tyche directs rebases from deposited sOHM to recipient addresses Can be used for various crowdfunding purposes without donors losing their principal

              Proposal: Tyche contract will allow Ohmies to deposit sOHM to donate rebase yields to anyone without losing their principal Donation recipients will be issued vault shares, akin to Yearn vault shares you may be familiar with sOHM inside this contract will accumulate rebases Recipients must redeem their shares for the deposited sOHM Donors will be able to withdraw their principal deposited sOHM at any time

              This proposal seeks to highlight and calibrate our community around a great use case and cause.

                Don_G_Lover To be clear I'm 100% in favor of Tyche, so long as Ohmies are donating their own yield. It's when yields from the DAO, or the treasury, or any source other than an individual's own bags, are used that I have an issue.

                Tyche is awesome, but it's awesome precisely because it enables individuals to opt-in of their own volition and with their own yield/funds.

                  Against this. Why go this route when the same or similar objectives can by accomplished using Tyche?

                  Don_G_Lover Hmm sounds like I need to read things more closely, thank you. Though, I do think the $500k match from OlympusDAO is better done later if at all.

                    Maybe this should be reposted with clarification bolded and option to not have $500k match specifically