• General

  • Request for Comments - CEX Listing

SUMMARY: Community temperature check for CEX listings - request for comments.

BACKGROUND: We have been approached by a number of top tier centralized exchanges to list OHM on their platforms.

Prior to dedicating time and resources to entertain the rigorous listing process, we would like to know if there is a general interest from the Ohmies.

MOTIVATION:

  • Broaden our reach to a wider audience
  • Begin exploring custodial staking or bonding opportunities with key partners
  • Enhanced brand recognition and legitimacy
  • More individuals learning about bonds and other advanced mechanics
  • Per above, increase in bond purchase = bigger treasury

DISCUSSION TOPICS:

  • Should OHM pursue listing on a centralized exchange?
  • What exchanges are most interesting to our community?
  • What are the perceived benefits of listing?
  • What are some red flags or considerations we should have as we pursue these activities?
  • Should we wait for a specific market cap target?

POLL WILL CLOSE AT END OF JULY

Should Olympus pursue listing on a CEX?

This poll has ended.

    IMO, OHM should strongly avoid CEX listing. This is the first time I have voiced against CEX listing. CEX has no interest in (3,3). They are for money but nothing else. From my past experience, CEX always dumps the staking rewards in bear market to keep their operations asusual. Instead, we should get integrate with similar to ohm and strong communities like, Thor chain, LUNA, Solana, ADA and Polka dot. These strong communities bring more quality userbase than any CEX. Also more people trading on CEX affects the treasury and run way of the protocol. As a whole i don't see any long term positive effect on protocol growth from CEX listing.

      Traders on CEX are generally there to try to buy low sell high, they don't care about the protocol or what it does or its purpose, or (3, 3). If someone wants to invest in OHM and participate in Olympus now, SushiSwap is the easy rite of passage they should go through.

      @Don_G_Lover hey sorry, i have to lock this post until it meets the guidelines as laid out in https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/6-proposal-rules-and-guidelines

      Issues:
      i) Title is not preceded with an OIP number
      ii) It is unclear whether this proposal is already finalized (see Note below) or only serves to gather feedback among the members. If it is the latter, it should be posted under the General section.

      Note: The post listed under the Proposal section is meant to be final, which means it has previously gone through discussion with members either in our Discord or in the General section of the forum. A Scattershot vote is expected to follow with this kind of proposal.

      kschan locked the discussion .
      kschan unlocked the discussion .

      crypto_psych

      Would the idea of custodial services for things you’ve seen today in Olympus be interesting?

        It's interesting in terms of price appreciation and I ticked yes but on hindsight I probably think CEX should be long, long after we are a standard form of collateral in real decentralised finance - CEX too soon (with all the things they routinely do to tokens) would at minimum seem to pose some challenges to the use case narrative of Ohm right when we want it to be presented in its strongest light to the projects we actually respect as partners. But that's just the opinion of this random dumb guy... fwiw.

        I feel that CEX listing is premature. To me, one of our key sources of revenue in the future will be transaction fees from DEXs. If we can approach traditional stablecoin levels of volume while owning our own liquidity, the revenue from transaction fees will be insane. CEX listing means we miss out on fees from transactions. Of course, we still get some trickle down affect via people arbing the difference between CEX and DEX price. But this pales in comparison to what we're missing out on if people are using OHM to trade in and out of various tokens on the CEX platform.

        The counterpoint would be if CEX listing would increase bond sales. But why exactly would that be the case? Maybe OP can explain further?

        Finally, I think we should only consider CEXs that are prepared to offer OHM staking services for their customers. If you can't stake with the CEX, then have to get your hands dirty with Metamask etc. But avoiding that kind of stuff is precisely why someone is on a CEX to begin with. We want to avoid facilitating a scenario where people are blinding aping into OHM only to realize later that they're being massively diluted because they didn't stake.

          mudshrk I believe there may be opportunities to explore having CEXes purchase large bonds in order to obtain the liquidity they require for bootstrapping a listing.

          This is just a concept at the moment but something to consider.

          Agree on your other points!

              Too soon - giving the ability to short and trade before our RFV is higher is not a good idea....we want to encourage 3,3, listing on a CEX does the opposite

              Hard no to CEX listings. We are far too small to be listed with the mechanics our ecosystem runs off of. Once APY has stabilized and we've become a true floating currency then CEX listing should occur (2-5 yrs).

              No, I think it's a bad idea, and at the very least it's way too soon. Look how far we've come on our own. CEX listing would give too much power to an actor we can't trust. They'd have too much power over the narrative. I think it's BAD for 3,3

              I'd like more info on what exactly a CEX listing entails.

              • Is a bunch of OHM going to have to be minted and/or paid to a CEX treasury account? What amounts?
              • Will that CEX also offer some sort of option for buyers on its platform to stake?
              • Other than being listed, what does OHM get in return?

              I think we have to be really careful with making a step like this. As others have mentioned, it will be hard to relay our 3,3 message on a third party site.

              I am definitely against custodial staking as this should be kept inhouse. I do see an opportunity in the bonding process being managed by a CEX or third party as this surely will increase the revenue of the treasury, however, whoever we partner with needs to work with our DAO to create the same message of 3,3 on their portal/site and I think that is where the problem lies.

              I think the market will come to us, so any partnership we do agree on should be very lopsided in our favor!

              Don_G_Lover I very much like the idea of having the CEXes bond in order to receive liquidity but would the protocol need to be altered in order to surpass the max amount of OHM that can be bonded? I would imagine the CEXes would want a good deal of liquidity. Depending on how many CEXes wish to provide liquidity what % of current liquidity would required to be bonded? I'd imagine CEXes wouldn't be interested in current bond discounts so the return for the protocol would definitely be lower. Would also imagine they would take some bps if they somehow incorporated direct bonding from the protocol.

              The positives as you listed are there. Wider reach/faster growth but I think the price point of OHM bonds. Could maybe come to some sort of price agreement with CEX's based on past sushi fees and growth extrapolated out and compared to other first time CEX listings.