Summary: Seek authority from the community to acquire strategic assets that will help Olympus strengthen its prevalence throughout DeFi. This allows Olympus to significantly increase our passive revenue generation, acquire governance power and increase the diversification of treasury assets.

These assets will be acquired through bonds, DAO swaps and/or direct market orders using funds from a newly created investment reserve towards which a portion of the overall bond capacity will be redirected. For clarity, we will not market sell OHM to achieve this.

To ensure best price execution for Olympus, targeted whitelisted assets will not be unveiled until either bonds are live or the Treasury team has completed the purchase. However, the treasury team will evaluate and share the results from the Strategic asset investment framework for each potential strategic asset after execution.

Motivation: When Olympus was in its infancy, the protocol placed a focus on acquiring liquidity and stable assets to bolster the risk free value of the treasury. As the protocol mechanism was new and undiscovered, an emphasis was placed on this metric to provide security and intrinsic value. Today, this has grown to $758,173,633 dollars in market value, and $169,807,441 value in risk free value.

We believe that Olympus has now acquired enough stable assets backing OHM to begin to diversify and acquire more non-pegged assets, and shift a portion of revenue towards increasing the market value of our treasury. It is no longer about risk aversion, it is about risk management.

We want to cement our place in DeFi as the de-facto decentralized reserve currency. By acquiring governance power, we can vote on proposals that benefit the Olympus ecosystem. This will allow for the continued growth and expansion of the Olympus ecosystem.We believe that acquiring certain strategic assets will help us achieve this objective.

With the support of the community, Olympus can acquire strategic assets, and adjust its strategy within DeFi to maximize yield and benefits to OHM.

Important Notes on strategic investments

  • Strategic investments will not be revealed to the community before approval, to avoid front running. Executing these kinds of deals requires some form of trust from the Community. We will be as transparent as possible by sharing results from the Strategic Asset Framework developed by the DAO.

  • Strategic investments will only be used to purchase what we call utility assets. These are assets that we intend to keep as long as they help Olympus by providing:

    • Additional partnerships opportunities

    • Increased influence on liquidity direction

    • Governance power in key protocols

    • Better yield opportunities for our Reserve assets

    • Diversification in market value of treasury

  • Unlike Reserve assets, utility assets may or may not be sold by Olympus as we continuously re-evaluate their strategic value.

  • We propose to limit the amount of strategic assets we can acquire: the cost basis of our strategic assets must be less than 33% of the RFV of our Treasury.

Potential strategic investments

Following the recent CVX proposal, the Treasury team has compiled a list of potential tokens that we think could provide strategic value to Olympus DAO. These tokens were selected for their yield potential, governance influence and partnership opportunities. The governance power of tokens can lead to greater passive revenue. Greater passive revenue can lead to greater runway and backing of OHM.

As always, we remain open to any other suggestions coming from the community and we invite any of you to look for other projects that would fit our strategy. Additionally, any of the below assets or any other one for the matter, must still get reviewed by the Treasury team.

Token list:

  • TOKE

  • CRV

  • CVX

  • TRIBE

  • FXS

  • RGT

  • MKR

  • ETH

  • LQTY

Note: As the treasury grows and other strategic opportunities arise this list may grow to include more assets. This proposal will be amended and undergo another community vote under that circumstance.

Proposal: Allow the Treasury team to autonomously acquire strategic assets on behalf of OlympusDAO. We will limit the Net Asset Cost of our strategic assets to 33% of Treasury RFV.  Keep in mind that Treasury RFV is an extremely conservative metric: At the moment, the market value of our Treasury is $762m, versus $170m RFV.

This will allow the creation of an investment reserve which would take away some of the bond capacity from Reserve & LP bonds. This proposal will help Olympus acquire assets without front running risk and generate passive revenue.

Allow the Treasury team to acquire strategic assets on behalf of OlympusDAO.

This poll has ended.

    No brainer for me… Lets grow this treasury

    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!