Great proposal!

This is exactly like how major financial institutions manage risk via wealth management. This will be incredibly helpful for long-term longevity and as a hedge against unpredictable market behavior.

Great proposal Json. Let's get this ball rolling.

json

No single person or team should be given the right to spend the funds of treasury! Crypto space and DEFI is large. OlympusDAO centric world view is not good. If OlympusDAO decides to buy some asset, then the entire world will put their funds to front run the DAO is a skewed view. There are a ton of different things going on simultaneously at any given time in crypto and Defi. Bonding mechanism is great way to acquire assets gradually over time. And it is this bonding mechanism which is the usp of OlympusDAO. So we should not see open discussion, making decisions based on community voting to acquire strategic assets via process of bonding as inferior compared to opaque buying decision made by small group of people. Please everybody vote to preserve the transparency of the DAO decision making process and have faith in community vote and bonding. Thank you

      A couple of questions:

      1. Can we get transparency on which specific members will be primarily driving these internal decisions?

      2. While I hope we can stay on the happy path of up only in this market or having very small drawdowns, nothing is guaranteed. I see that you somewhat call out "the cost basis of our strategic assets must be less than 33% of the RFV of our Treasury" as one risk mitigation strategy, but can you also elaborate more on why this is an appropriate upper bound (besides the meme), as well as other risk mitigation strategies the team has come up with (for example, maybe reduce further bear risk if X token sees a Y% drop within a day).

      3. What is the minimum threshold after which the team will reveal the asset(s) that it has accrued (could it be as simple as "we have acquired enough for now")? I see this was addressed in an earlier comment, where the team will only acquire assets from a bag of approved assets.

      4. Could there be cases where the team acquires assets initially only to sell them before revealing what those assets were? I feel like since such a case can exist, will there be transparency on what the assets were and why we backed out on certain assets? Addressed after answering question (3) above.

      5. What will the process look like if, after a while, the treasury team decides to reduce exposure to certain assets?

        json

        I think I personally would find it beneficial to understand what this internal framework involves before moving this OIP to a snapshot.

          I'm supportive of the OIP. The aspiration behind most of the whitelist is pretty clear. Eg. we should have an interest in the gov tokens of the stables we mint against.

          Just want to add 5 cents for caution.

          Investing the treasury into (eth) dapps/DAOs should be compared to just increasing ETH or staked ETH backing as a passive strat. The test of diversification is if these gov tokens outperform ETH in the long run (dividends + price), since we do take additional risk with them, the stable coin banks excluded.

          Fairly strong argument to be made a 'central bank' should just stay passive in their exposure. In crypto I think that means the native token as an index, since it does benefit from all the activity under it.

          Just something to track like a hawk (eth vs strategic portfolio performance).

          For further managing risk we'd have to hold other platform native tokens. Understandably we are not there yet other than what was already decided with wBTC.

          GM, I like it in principle but have a few questions.

          What's driving your conviction that now is the time to diversify?

          How would governance power be exercised in new organisations? What's the mechanism and how will it remain an open process?

          Then to flip the front-running / privileged info argument on it's head, what would happen if we were to release the info in advance prior to purchase - let's say to buy e.g. ETH?

          There could then be a closed / blind vote by Ohmies about whether the ETH market price [reflected post announcement] represents value, where no one knows outcome or the current vote swing. The outcome of the vote then triggers the purchase to be made / not made.

          OR maybe some other mechanism could work?

          Thnx

          • json replied to this.

            Definitely support this proposal.

            It will sound like a boomer comment….. but we should add YFI on this list too.