davoice321 very thoughtful post, I absolutely agree that getting listed without proper liquidity provisions can be problematic, as it likely fails to create the conditions for investors to confidently enter the market. Our goal would be to make the centralized listings highly investable. The current Olympus community is about 10,000 strong, but the client base of those exchanges is in the millions, there is simply so much potential benefit for the protocol from broader adoption.

      EconomistBeard we will use the OHM tokens to populate the offer side of the market but it is our own balance sheet that will be used for the bid side of the market, think of it as GSR putting up the other asset in the Liquidity Pool

        If this is approved conceptually, I would like to see the option to repay in ETH removed. The loan should be repaid in stablecoins, to continue to build RFV for minting capacity.

        DefiWolf more centralized exchanges will list OHM, this is independent of this conversation. What we are trying to do is make sure that when those listings happen, the market has a tight bid-offer spread and decent size on both sides. Centralized listings are fantastic marketing opportunities, they will help expend your community in unexpected ways, again millions of crypto users that stand to get exposure to the protocol, it is worth doing it right.
        I believe the community agrees, because the engagement on this post is amazing!

            I'm kind of surprised at the pushback on 'no centralized exchanges'. The point of Ohm is to become a reserve currency. This means it needs liquidity not just in defi but in more proper and popular spaces. The value of Ohm is in its ability to achieve stability through treasury growth and staking. Eventually, CEX's will be able to stake Ohm, either by partnering with Olympus, or figuring out how to swap to sOhm some other way.

            This is one of the most bullish and positive things for Ohm rn.

              1. Should there be some interest in the repayment option of returning the full 25,000 OHM at the end of 12 months?
              2. I also don't understand why a centralized exchange listing would increase DEX volume. Can someone hash out that logic? Is it just the increased visibility of the token driving that?
              3. Will there be any additional fees that the DAO needs to incur to get listed on any particular exchange associated with GSR?
              4. Is there a list of supported exchanges that GSR will be providing liquidity on?

                setting up a use case for tradfi/custodial CEX users with OHM is necessary, and this will bring in more money to keep the protocol expanding. I dont mind the loan, not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, never was a fan of hardline slippery slope arguments.

                i urge the community to think this through.

                -we lend 25'000 ohm againt nothing. we hold no liquid financial instrument from GSR that we can exercise and receive $$$ from within 48h should they not respect their obligations.

                -we earn no interest from the loan

                -we allow large players to borrow from GSR and short 25'000 ohm, which is approx equivalent to our sushi LP DAILY volume ! (25m$) we give them full control of the price !

                -we give them 2 free calls, no obligations to purchase and no minimum witholding period.

                what do we gain ? a few CEX listings ? the protocol needs the vast majority of its holders to stake otherwise the mechanic breaks. when you start to have a significant portion of holders who do not stake but trend follow price on CEX with stop loss etc.. we will experience a different price curve than what we have today. when the overall market goes south the selling pressure on ohm will be huge and what will we have gained ? they will return the 25k ohm (if they do) and what exactly will that have accomplished long term for the protocol ?

                what happens if a regulatory body goes to GSR and asks them to stop trading the token ? or to hand it over to them let's assume GSR does hand over those tokens to some legal authority, what do we do then ?

                  Iceman why are you surprised ? ohm is trading at a premium to the RFV . buyers are willing to pay that premium because the protocol is in growth phase and assets and LP fees are being acquired and the APY will make up for the current haircut in the future (you buy 900 something worth 200 there is 700 haircut which are to be covered by the APY)

                  if too many holders start to trade ohm and not stake it then price will quickly go to the RFV value

                  CEX addition isn't the holy grail. we would benefit more if ohm was captured by passive indexes like DEFI indexes

                    Wartull

                    You don’t need perp to short ohm just two parties and one of them holding ohm

                    I borrow 1000ohm from you at $1000. I sell it, price go down to$ 900, I buy it back. Now I have 1100ohm, I give you back your 1000+ interest.

                    So here we would be giving free ohm to potentially get dumped on, all while these fine gentlemen have zero dollarized risk. Assume you never paid for your Ohm, why not do the above over and over and over.

                    @Zeus

                    I would be very wary dealing with MM and Wall Street bread guys, thinking they have our good intentions at heart is blissfully naive. Their mentality comes from a ruthless world you wouldn’t be able to understand unless you have been in it. Loan I am against it, this is defi if they want they can acquire ohm on the open market and do with it whatever they deem fit. We should not give them ohm “for free”. This at least will bring some direct value to ohm and align them with us. With no skin in the game, it’s like a working-lady that got sweet talked into giving you a ride for free. The Ohmie community is to good for its own good, don’t let your guard down especially when dealing with sharks, MMs being the most opportunistic & dangerous of them all. One small fuck up an they will capitalize on it. I suggest core to take counsel from the DAO every step of the way, to the finest details. There is no rush we are doing more than great as it is.

                    For something to succeed it is a combination of the right opportunity executed at the right time. Question is, is this the right opportunity and is now the time for it?

                        Wartull this is wrong wartull, you do not need a perp market to short it…. please see how otc deals are done

                          Dom98000 finally some common sense ! fellow ohmies i urge you to read these comments through. a lot of us in the community have extensive financial knowledge and real business experience. we know these deals, we worked there. we did them. listen. or don't listen and think for yourself.

                          have you ever been to a car shop and requested 25k cars to be lent to you for a year at no cost and you may or may not have the option to buy them at the end of the period ? because you provide the nice service of parking them in your lot which very central thereby exposing the cars to the wider traffic area ? no ? well because it's a stupid deal that's why

                          metamask google trends is at all time high and we passed 10 million users in August. forget this CEX listing. the current terms are not favorable to Ohm holders

                            Great info in here, I vote yes.

                            Is there a snapshot link?

                            This proposal should never have made it this far to the public like this. I’m sorry to be commenting publicly like this, but it is kind of forced since its gotten this far.

                            This proposal is for an OTCBB penny stock, not a multi-billion dollar international project with plenty of traction.

                            A FREE massive almost-in-the-money call option? <30 days ago it would be in the money. I’d price the option but I’m afraid my calculator would start smoking.

                            ++ a FREE loan for their inventory??

                            Market making, HFT, quant firms, and centralized exchanges are all components of a healthy market, and we should be supportive and encouraging of GSR’s endeavors in OHM.

                            The way market making firms work is investors put up capital so the firm can inventory assets. Those investors put up their capital because they know that market making is going to capture a spread. Let’s not even get into how lucrative this could be in DeFi.

                            GSR clearly has our support to make a market, but they don’t need free money.

                              Why do we need CEX…this is not a good idea IMO…

                                alexk1d HAHAHA that is right. I’m dying!

                                Hey GSR folks reading this, if you pull this off, make sure you get the biggest glass tombstone you can find. This will be one hell of a moneymaker.

                                  I'll be honest this seems not thought out well. Here is where I stand:

                                  1. I acknowledge they are good at MM. If we were to outsource to a MM they would be a good choice.

                                  I am not sold that we need this. For starters, why do we want to put OHM on an exchange? We're just diluting our grandmas who do not have the technical knowledge to offboard from a CEX and stake. And if we plan to have exchanges staking for their users, we first need to grow up our DAO in a way where that's not a LT threat to have low-info voters & CEX's voting on proposals. I've seen too many onchain govs go south once you bring in low-info stakeholders and the process just falls apart due to not having robust systems beforehand. Beyond that, our focus should be on capturing the value already in other multi-chain systems, not those who only live on a CEX and would be overwhelmed by learning how to send it to AVAX, Eth, whereever else and stake it. This pie alone is 10x & actually attracts more high-info stakeholders into the DAO. If anything I believe the best plan is to focus on this for the next 3 months and revisit CEX in 3-6 months once we've crushed it on Multichains.

                                  The team has not laid out why now is the right time to MM. I was adamantly against CEX listings months prior and I feel it was correct then, I am still against it because I have yet to hear any compelling reasons that weigh the trade-offs properly.

                                  If they want to MM for us, the best thing we could do is sell them OTC sOHM (gOHM) at a small discount and they can then make markets with it. What ppl don't understand here is there are a million ways to hedge discreetly even if they dont "in essence" stake directly in the contract, and it's just a huge oversight to line up the incentives that way. If they really believed in us they would put capital into the OHM project by buying our tokens and have it be an asset on their balance sheet, not just do a risk-free move where in essence there is no downside to them. If they're given sOHM (or gOHM) then at least their incentives are aligned as ours.. but as a thought as well, why don't we wait another 6m for our DAO to mature, we spin off an arm within the DAO we could do the MM'ing ourselves w/ CEXs. Even having that option open and not rushing into this is better.

                                  TL;DR - Focus on Multichain first. CEX today isn't where the growth is. Before CEX, need to focus on more robust systems in DAO to be able to onboard lower info stakeholders. When ready for actual CEX adoption, need to create a deal with better incentives (they buy gOHM) or we do it ourselves through the DAO, the DAO by that time would be better structured to handle it.

                                  Hard vote No until I understand why concerns are not actually major concerns

                                  Interesting points all around. I see opportunities here and I have some doubts as well.

                                  Opportunities are clear: More exposure for Olympus, with more volume and thus a more representative price action. Right now, with relatively low volume, the price is subject to swings from big operations that could be mitigated with higher volume, IMO.

                                  The drawbacks are… well… they are there, and have been mentioned. The thing is, I'm not sure most of them are really avoidable mid to long-term?

                                  What I mean by this is that our beloved Olympus is permissionless. Some of the objections here are great points, but to me it seems like those are things that could happen any moment, no? For instance, Binance could purchase 25k OHM tomorrow and decide to list Olympus. They could stake it, wrap as gOHM and have massive governance power… this all could happen and there's very little we could do to stop it.

                                  So, what are the differences between that and this proposal? Two very clear ones that I can see are:

                                  1- We are getting an agreement and can figure the terms under which we show up in a CEX. It provides some control for the DAO and we get to protect the protocol from certain situations which could really damage it. And yes, agreements are broken all the time. However, breaking an agreement is not free, particularly in financial systems were trust is the backbone. Much more so in Crypto, I believe.

                                  2- The loan. I am a bit taken aback by the lack of interests of any kind. Having said that, it is true that they would be risking the other pair(s) they would be using in the LP and that the agreement to refrain from staking or wrapping for governance use takes much of the use out of the token, and thus does not really provide its entire utility (and hence, value).

                                  I think it should also be noted that an outright purchase instead of a loan as many have suggested WOULD give a CEX full rights to stake and participate in governance. And having a CEX with governance power over Olympus is pretty scary, at least for me.

                                  I am inclined with saying yes and choosing our own terms for appearing in a CEX and the token use, while we can manage terms that protect the most important parts of the protocol. But I will hold off an opinion until the AMA has happened and this entire conversation can be expanded further. This is by no means a horrible proposal, it's actually pretty good in light of the possible alternatives that I can imagine, but some assurances need to be there etched in stone IMHO.