Fair distribution of the Lobis airdrop to all OHMies

KO-XD

Hello fren. I totally agree that OIP-44 was worded in a disingenuous way. It should be emphasized that OlympusDAO fulfilled its part of the deal in full by supplying liquidity. Lobis did not honor their part of the deal in full and this should be rectified. While what happened is wrong, I do not think forcing an airdrop now is the correct move. I think in honor of deal making and business the most appropriate move would be take the liquidity back, then have Lobis re submit a forum post/vote. I think evenly distributing Lobis based on Ohm holdings is the correct move, but should happen after the liquidity provided is back in the treasury.

KO-XD

jellyfish It may be possible that the authors of the post are clumsy/ESOL. But frankly in the business world that is no excuse when money is involved. OlympusDAO gave Lobis OHM in the form of liquidity and they did not follow up on their end of the deal. Holders of Olympus and members of the community deserve better than that.

harrigan

Agreed. This sets a poor precedent, not just for airdrops, but for loosely written proposals that are open to interpretation and amendment after the vote.

Ananth

This is what the OIP 44 snapshot proposal says

Approve terms for Lobis launch including:

Lobis use of Olympus mechanisms to acquire CRV, FXS, etc. via bonds
Lobis free loan portion of initial supply of LOBI to OlympusDAO
OlympusDAO to supply initial liquidity for OHM-LOBI pair using OHM from DAO Treasury, approve up to $5m OHM for initial liquidity
Lobis to airdrop LOBI to Ohmies via Merkle tree
Lobis to hard-code 1.1% revenue share of bond sales

I've highlighted the relevant point. It says "OHMIES" and not "OHMIES who vote on the proposal". Anyone who owns OHM / sOHM / any other derivative of OHM is an Ohmie in my opinion.

MrLoop

Ananth basically what he's saying.

Proposals are a form of contract. Lobis is in breach.

millunare

They may not be following through on their end but is there anything that can be done? I thought once the contract was in place that was it.

millunare

jellyfish Lobis is what, 4-5k each right now. I was in the discord and I still seen no mention of them going live or how to participate. All a little disheartening when they are using our OHM community to pimp out themselves without being transparent of the process. Stealth launches are not cool.

mysselium33

This seems like an excellent post for the Lobis forum

jellyfish

mysselium33 By this point they don't care and only ridicule people who bring up these points. It's a wasted effort.

mysselium33

jellyfish

by that description it sounds like a shitty project

not sure why we'd want to keep bringing it up here tbh

what am I missing

Inkycaps

DegensArcade This poll is based around your interpretation of "Olympus Community"

I would suggest a community is one that actively engages with each other and the DAO.

Examples of engagement are:

Governance ( OIPs )

NFT projects

Forks

And the Governance that revolves around those NFT projects and forks.

Passive Hodlers will still benefit if Lobis is successful, so why cry about it?

Passive effort deserves passive results.

millunare

Inkycaps Why the smugness? Using your own words "Why cry about others talking about it?"

The LOBIS proposal was inaccurate and should have been clarified better. You have people in the LOBIS discord claiming there project is better than OHM all while discounting OHM community members issues ( Now that they got the deal they wanted ) with the way the whole process took place.

The Airdrop issue is part of the issue if for no other reason than the LOBIS team had the OHM community believe that they were entitled to the AirDrop. Now that everything is moving forward they simply say " well we should have known that the AirDrop would not have happened to the OHM Community. Then they state NO votes were excluded, Then all votes are included but not others who did not vote. But this was never stated as a requirement to begin with. I clicked the YES vote in this forum but at this time I have not seen a claim or anything.

Again, AirDrop aside it sets a bad precedent moving forward.

I have no issue with airdrops, some see them as bribes for a yes or no vote, but I see them for what it is " as a way to gain more adoption and excitement over a project".

And all either side can say is " Well, we will try to be more transparent in the future and vet projects better"

I am not saying anyone is crying about it, those are your words to other community members that are unhappy so far how things have transpired.