I think this proposal raises some fundamental questions for the DAO given that the DAO will be entering into binding agreements with third-parties, and the legal/procedural aspects of this are unclear.

My questions are:

Process/Legal

1. Does Olympus have an traditional arm (foundation/offshoot) that handles legal agreements with third parties? Who is negotiating on behalf of DAO token holders?
2. If this entity exists, where is it domiciled?
3. Does the DAO have legal counsel operating on behalf of the DAO (through this legal entity)?
4. How are agreements like this handled at other DAOs, and what learnings can we take from these other agreements?
5. How will the DAO have recourse if the deal is not honored by GSR -- especially the terms around the strike price?
6. Are there methods for enforcing the terms of this agreement via a smart contract, even an escrow or earnest money deposit? If possible, we should be looking for decentralized mechanisms to manage agreements rather than traditional approaches.

Benefits/Drawbacks of Working With Market Makers
1. How does this agreement, and push to facilitate trading of OHM at CEXs, fit within Olympus' mandate to become the reserve currency of DeFi?
2. Will this agreement provide sufficient liquidity at CEXs that is worth the risk of providing GSR with the loan?
3. What can we expect from an additional liquidity perspective from this activity?
4. I've seen other DAO tokens, YFI listed on centralized exchanges (at very low liquidity levels) in the past, with presumably, no involvement from the DAO in these activities. Why should Olympus enter into this agreement as opposed to simply letting market makers and CEXs gather inventory on their own to market make and provide liquidity to CEXs?

GSR As a Partner

1. What is GSR offering as a partner that is superior/inferior to other options? What terms/etc were considered and rejected from other market makers?
2. Does GSR have experience working with other DAOs and what has this experience been like -- positive or negative?
3. Can GSR provide some references or third parties who can speak to their ability to work with other decentralized communities?

Side Note/Snark: Why isn't GSR refer to the community by its proper name: Ohmies? And what does it mean that GSR didn't get this basic fact right in developing/drafting the proposal? (It's a small thing, but calls into question their understanding of the culture and expectations of community members).

I hope these questions can be answered both in the forum and upcoming AMA.

    gsr_nyc could you share any credit assessment paper that you have on GSR please?

      By the way, GSR is also the market maker for crypto exchanges set up by banks. So when they say they see dex and decentralisation as the way forward, I'll take it with a pinch of salt. Looks like they are hedging their business risk both ways. Partnering with banks and dex protocols. Whoever dominates in the future, they stand to benefit. There's no real idealism here, only profits.

        halyax

        I agree! reading their CV's, all from the Wall Street Club. Be Afraid, without knowing any of them on a personally or business level

          VerteMorte people really need to understand that many people don't dislike centralization and having exposure to CEXs is a net positive for the protocol. you can debate the specifics of the deal, but on balance it is good

            Wartull you don't necessarily need a perp to short. the proposal also doesn't contain the exchanges that they're interested in market making on. there's several exchanges that allow shorting spot on margin

            I'm not saying that shorting is bad; by all means efficient markets are better. But there doesn't seem to be a gain in any of these. Olympus is already shelling out nearly 100mil in incentives with Proteus to go cross-chain. What's the point of having liquidity on centralized exchanges if buyers don't gain any benefit of being on-chain, which, once again, is staking, governance, and collateral (e.g. Rari, Abracadabra, etc)

                gsr_nyc

                GSR is by far the most reputable MM for CEX's. With that said, Olympus DAO owns OHM based LP's. With Ohm going on CEX the DAO gains no benefit from LP trading fees. CEX trading of OHM would only allow non (3, 3) holders to speculate, having no direct exposure to protocol growth.

                You are also calling on the DAO to give 25,000 OHM with not even a promise that you will not stake for gOHM or vote in governance decisions. GSR could easily enter a situation with top CEX's where GSR holds gOHM gaining exposure to the protocol growth while lending out OHM to CEX's via traditional lending methods.

                Smart contracts allow for a pure code based agreement between the DAO and GSR (a centralized organization). Without a smart contract the DAO has no real way to make sure we are represented fairly in this negotiation. Therefore it is only fair to both the DAO and GSR that all future agreements be formalized via smart contract logic. Some processes and parts of the agreement would most likely call for a combination of DAO governance, multisig with signers voted on by the DAO, and multisig representation from GSR.

                Risks for Olympus DAO:

                • No fees from CEX liquidity
                • Speculators trading OHM without exposure to protocol growth
                • 25,000 OHM is given to GSR for free
                • GSR staking for gOHM getting (3, 3) rewards and voting in governance never having paid for the OHM!
                • Perpetual contracts open allowing for even more speculators not exposed to protocol growth, having negative impact on price

                Rewards for Olympus DAO:

                • CEX speculation on OHM would spread the message of Olympus DAO and (3, 3)
                • Olympus DAO builds reputation with GSR (if deal goes well)

                Main takeaway: We should be using our DAO and smart contracts to negotiate conditions of deals with MM's and other protocols going forward! It is our greatest strength when negotiating with centralized and decentralized entities.

                    KO-XD thank you - this summarizes what i was trying to say (in a much better way)

                    we're allowing more speculators to have an impact on price without reaping any benefits from it. Olympus Proteus is already paying a premium to spread across a number of other chains, both EVM and non-EVM. expanding outside of Ethereum already provides access to other ohmies who want to avoid Ethereum gas fees, THAT is exactly the audience that should be targeted, not CEXes

                      Zeus

                      Ser I agree that it is good that GSR is willing to come use our forum, but we should ask for more. We are in the web 3.0 world and smart contracts allow us to hold centralized parties accountable via codified agreements. Smart contracts are the only way a DAO is capable of holding centralized entities accountable in a contract. Frankly GSR should appreciate such clear terms and it would also bring amazing positive media attention to Olympus if this succeeds. We want to set precedents and play to our strengths to thrive.

                        We should not give this loan for free. We should follow OHM way and allow them to buy bond for the same amount with 5-10% discount.

                        I'm not so concerned about the "secret staking" angle.
                        It's traceable.
                        Assuming we have a legal front-end that can actually contract with them on centralized terms, it may be easy enough to hold them to that point of the bargain.

                          jft well said, I don't see the need of CEX. It will bring a lot of selling pressure.

                            This adds NO value to olympus. A zero-interest loan? opening arb opportunity? getting into CEX at this stage? what part of this is valuable to ohm

                            gsr_nyc This is totally uncalled for. Listing of CEX is not right. It's a rebasing token and listing it for trading purposes only will bring a lot of sell pressure forcing people who had earlier staked and selling only yields to sell principal and leave. This is a NO. Community take note, this will bring a lot of selling pressure. Anyways, there is a lot of OHM forks once this backfires, many Ohmies will find home in TIME and ROME and those protocols will learn from OHM CEX listing mistake. Some tokens are not meant for CEX. The Proteus cross-chain liquidity is the way to go, whoever wants to get OHM can get it cheaply from AVAX, the only thing the team can do is allow gOHM holders on all chains to be able to vote.

                            *CEX offering staking might curtail the imminent selling pressure a little bit.

                                Zap

                                Ser we are a DAO and have no legal front end. Smart contracts are better forms of agreements, we should use them to hold GSR at penalty if they stake for gOHM.