Good proposal, but how will this tie in with our recent spin-off Lobi? Also, no love for FiatDAO?

    Supportive, with one point of curiosity - given that ETH is also included here, how does this tie in with OIP40 on allocating 33% of RFV as ETH?

      json I support the proposal but I’d like to see a framework on how conflict of interest will be managed. If a treasury team member has a substantial position in a strategic asset, their thinking will surely get muddled.

      Thoughts on that?

          I am in support of this proposal, but I would like to know how we as a community can have transparency in asset acquisition while also protecting the integrity of the acquisitions themselves. How do we know, for example, that members of the acquisition committee are not personally profiting from insider knowledge of these trades either by trading in assets they already own or have some stake in, or by front-running the assets themselves?

            which ones of those can u still wl?

            Great idea! 10% of RFV is sensible and diversification is always a good idea, as long as the assets are conviction plays.

            It is totally understandable that the DAO needs to keep these type of purchases under wraps until they are executed. But just as a comment, though, I would love it if the OIP was to establish or state a set of characteristics or features for what would constitute a strategic asset candidate, and/or a set of features or characteristics that would disqualify an asset from being so. The potential investments enumerated are great as examples, but I am interested in going a step further, if at all possible.

            As an example: "Not really looking for assets below a 250m market cap unless X, Y or Z".

            Not saying that should be a rule per-se, specifically, and not saying the Treasury team should paint themselves into a corner from the get-go by outlining this stuff and engraving it in stone right now. I understand this would need wiggle room to consider projects with value propositions that may not even exist right now, as it was with OHM less than a year ago, making it is impossible to outline what they are. Just trying to say that I am interested in having some sort of aim outlined as to what type of value propositions we are considering, in broad strokes, if that makes sense.

            • json replied to this.

              @json support this proposal wholeheartedly.

              At this time, may i also suggest that we need to establish a formal "code of conduct" for the policy/treasury team that will be privy to extremely valuable information? This is to avoid conflicts that privileged information might encourage.

              Sirz UST was already in a previous proposal and we will be bonding that. However, at this time Luna is not viewed as a strategic asset. Doesn't mean we can't add it!

                Chauloko The determination of what we feel classifies an asset as a viable a strategic asset will be through listing them in proposals. This starts with this proposal and we can amend and add as we determine more of them. We are always open to suggestions on assets! However, the policy/treasury team is quite active in DeFi so we are usually privy to key currencies that have immense benefit to OHM and OHM holders.

                    I totally support this proposal, although it's going to give us a lot of pain down the road and we should already start preparing how are we going to tackle cross-DAO interactions and start planning budget for that.

                    For example, if we acquire enough MKRs we might get a significant voting power in their decision-making process and we should be engaged in it. I guess in such case we should have people in the DAO spending enough time analyzing different proposals, summarizing them to OlympusDAO, gathering feedback, and then presenting our position in front of MakerDAO. +I totally agree with @Asfi that we'll need to make sure that at least we have transparency on our procedures.

                    Yet am very excited about this, looking forward to what future brings us!

                    Asfi Currently, most members that have substantial positions with the above mentioned assets try to abstain as best they can as to determining which assets and how much the protocol should acquire. Given the fact that we're all heavily in DeFi this becomes a bit more complicated. We feel giving the community heads up as to which assets we're targeting should give an inclination (alfa) of what we believe are key currencies to target for growth, primarily for the protocol.. not financial advice of course.

                    With that said, I think it's fair that we can include an internal framework as to the members within the teams that are privy to this knowledge to not abuse this information. I do want to say that we will mostly likely be acquiring a lot of these via bonds so it's more DCA than huge purchases.

                        json

                        So, if I understand this correctly (and forgive me for asking if it is obvious, there is a language barrier here for me) what you are saying is that the final assets that will be purchased by the Treasury will be selected out of an approved list of candidates such as the one submitted to this vote, that will be amended when new opportunities are considered? Meaning, no other candidates or potential assets would be considered without a vote to include them as projects of interest first?

                            EconomistBeard This will not directly impact lobis and is not meant to be competitive to them. FiatDAO is definitely in consideration for future proposals!