The reserve currency of Defi needs to play with regulated spaces. Bridging the gap of Tradfi to Defi to allow Olympus and OHM as a concept to reach as many people/institutions is an important step. We want to be ubiquitous and tbh we have really matured as a protocol over the past 8 months. It is a natural next step to create other markets in Tradfi for OHM, the reserve currency of Defi.

The AMA will provide more clarity of the intentions of GSR and whether they are under the ethos of our community. If they are a friendly market-maker, it is time to move forward with a chosen party.

Terms to reflect on:

  1. Is the goal to include or exclude people from discovering OHM? Defi is a small place, market makers will help give exposure to many outside the glorious defi.

  2. gOHM = governance. Please keep this naked OHM and let retail/institutions come over to Defi and (3,3). No need to give anyone governance power who is outside the castle right now.

  3. Define the terms for the community before the swap: avoid dilution, avoid handing over governance power, what are normal terms for dealing with a MM and are these market terms?

  4. Questions for GSR: Any forecasts on possible volume for OHM on CEXs? Who are your customers and do you see retail or institutions controlling the volume? Do you give the opportunity to include marketing material and other resources to be plugged in when you offer OHM? Is there anyway GSR can promote OHM over other MMs?


    Interested to see where this goes…A great quote in the discord from @BarrelAged
    "Right now, holding OHM is like holding paper money of a hyper-inflating currency (which is essentially what OHM is right now)." Let them hold it…staking will form around it, which we can dictate or help CEX dictate and bring people into the family frens….

    Wartull As someone who regularly deals with contracts as part of my day-to-day work, that's not the most reassuring response I've ever heard.

      Jawesome we believe that GSR has our best interest in mind

      cant tell if this is ironic or not

        Wartull Agree, would just like a little more clarity on process so we don't end up with a ClusterF#%k. I know some of the larger exchanges have custodial staking arrangements. Just seems a little shifty to say "no, we won't stake in order to not dilute you" and then turn around and have a native staking via the CEX. That said, I am for the agreement, but with a little more process on what will go on behind the curtain. I think it is time for CEX. Just hope Light and Alameda don't pummel over leveraged Ohmies.

          Wartull absolutely. There will be a legally binding contract, also we are in a relationship based ecosystem, we want to do right by you and help build up the crypto asset class together. Our reputation rides on our actions, and with this public proposal, we know this is what is at stake.

            MrE "Right now, holding OHM is like holding paper money of a hyper-inflating currency (which is essentially what OHM is right now)."

            Who wouldnt want to take out a loan in a hyper-inflating currency? Much easier to pay back in a year

                EconomistBeard after collecting the comments here, in a few days we will follow the process and post in the treasury proposal channel for a proper vote.

                  Don_G_Lover yeah to extend on this. With regard to 'I don't want OHM on CEXs' or 'I don't want CEXs to have governance power' at the end of the day it is permissionless and there is nothing we can do. I do agree strongly with the governance power piece, but listing is in my opinion is inevitable whether we like it or not. What we can do, however, is keep things on our own terms. Having a market maker that is, at a bare minimum, aligned enough to write a forum proposal and do an AMA with the community (rare/unheard of), is valuable and a good step.

                  Also, a solution to the governance power issue is for CEXs to hold and trade sOHM. This way they can offer staking natively without holding tokens that wield governance power.

                      EconomistBeard If the answer to this is no, it's a clear example of executive decision making at the expense of informed community consensus. That would mean an immediate "no" vote from me and I would encourage my fellow OHMies to do the same.

                          Hello sers gsr_nyc - I am sure there will be good answers but I have a few questions below you might help with:

                          Is GSR committed to only dealing with exchanges and not OTC?

                          If OTC is available - doesn't this open up a huge attack vector for shorting?

                          What's to stop GSR from selling OTC and the recipient staking?

                          Wouldn't exchanges prefer gOHM?

                              muh9s indeed sir, OHM in treasury, OHM in MM. Same same. It is inflating away, let us put it to work and get people into the fold

                                Zeus But on the matter of CEXs just using sOHM, we have no means to stop them from crossing the bridge into gOHM, do we?

                                • Zeus replied to this.

                                    Mark11 Actually I think OTC will be in the best interest of the project, especially if you can match sellers with buyers and minimize downward pressure this way. OTC buyers would be no different than buying from Sushi.

                                      Jawesome I saw that after it posted, doing this on mobile lol

                                      I'll hold out for review of the agreement and the AMA. Would be good to see the formal agreement prior to the AMA, though.

                                        Zeus Then we need to actively start thinking about way we can potentially limit centralised institutions and their governance power in the DAO. Objectively, this is great for OHM but I have some genuine concerns where this can lead for our DAO.