Request for Comments - CEX Listing

I agree, it’s too soon guys. I’d say yes for most of the defi projects out there but Olympus is not like most of the DeFi projects out there! So I’d vote no.

As others pointed out more eloquently:
-Olympus controls the majority of its liquidity. We will lose that if we list on a CEX.
-CEX traders in large may not care about bonding despite educational sessions/material.

We would open ourselves up to more volatility in the current not up-only market—volatility which we may not be able to translate into revenue or a sum positive to the dedicated bonders, stakers, and the protocol.

If the objective is to bring in larger institutional OHMies then perhaps it could be done another way instead of the brute force list on a CEX that's imploring to bring OHM onboard.

Don_G_Lover focus on steady growth with a committed community. Too early for a CEX

Hard pass - no from here!

CEX listing would probably just lead to increased and unwanted volatility, inviting bullshit speculators to dick around with our precious/sacred Ohm; voted no

Nope.

As others have pointed before me, the cons far outweigh the pros in our current state

Don't miss the forest for the trees

I think it is a great idea to partnership with at least 1 CEX at this stage of growth with specified terms and conditions set by Olympusdao.
The (3,3) aspect of the game theory is essential to our success, however; many of us fail to realize that exercising both (3,3) and (3,1) brings stability/balance to the protocol. Remember, recently we had to reduce the reward rate to .35% (OP-???) for 3 weeks due to lack of bonds being issued to the protocol. As we continue to grow in Ohms holders more people are (3,3ing) and I can see the same circumstance reoccurring. But, if we allow a CEX to list Ohms that will lead to more traders requesting for bonds (discounted Ohms) so they can arbitrage on the CEX which leads to profits, moreover; a savvy trader will stake some of his newly gained OHMs to hedge against possible losses. Consequently, this mechanism can help bring another layer of sustainability to the protocol. I must also mention that 1 CEX at a time is ideal at this stage of expansion, and as we continue to add new stakers we can proportionally add more CEXs.

While I think we are waaay too early for any CEX listing for all the reasons everyone else has listed, shouldn't the conversation be about listing sOHM and not OHM?

Nope, goes against the whole ethos of DeFi and Olympus imo. Why would we want stranded Ohms in exchanges not staking and being bought and sold like meme coins and especially right now in this part of the growth phase . 3,3 is the name of the game , if you want to be a part of Olympus it really isn’t that hard to figure out. Olympus will grow along with the adoption rate of the DeFi ecosystem , slow and steady

Seems an unnecessary risk when all metrics moving in the right direction presently. In terms of what metrics would we look at to consider initiating a desire to list on an exchange tho?

Number of OHMies, treasury asets and RFV are growing exponentially. If any of these slowed down to the point of stagnatation or reversal threatening protocol it may be worth the risks of what a CEX would bring? APY & Runway, Price Volatility, Increased Centralisation, and % Protocol owned liquidity (+Fees) the risks at a guess? I would also imagine % OHM stacked vs unstacked would swing; all of which likely effects the overall value proposition of the project itself.

I voted yes because I think a more measured approach would be more appropriate with the goal to first be to understand what a CEX listing would entail and how it would impact the protocol and the underlying game theory.

Some questions that first come to mind:

• Would we list OHM, sOHM, or both?
• Some exchanges (FTX, Coinbase, etc.) allow staking for some coins that they list. Is this a possibility for OHM?
• If the exchange does offer staking are we comfortable giving voting power in the form of sOHM to centralized entities like exchanges?
• What is the time frame for a listing and are there any requirements that a protocol must meet in order to be listed?
• What kind of marketing or other services would the exchange provide (if any)?
• How is the game theory affected if staking is not provided by the CEX and a significant percentage of OHM remains unstaked?

Overall, I tend to agree that it is too early for a direct CEX listing, but instead I propose allocating DAO resources to answering these types of questions so when the time is right we have a clear understanding of what it will mean to list OHM (or sOHM!) on a CEX.

I was STRONGLY pro CEX guy. Arbitrage is huge fees on swaps and also our charts looks insanely bullish on bear market which will attract money, attention and adoption.
Yes! That's all super great.
BUT
What we have now is so much better. All that paper hands and pro traders have to swing trade with dai-ohm LP.

They have to buy and dump OHM tokens using OUR liquidity and all that fees goes to stakers. So if there is no CEX they have to use OUR LPs which is great. If there will be cheaper way to speculate on OHM price, then we will lose a lot of trading volume.

Strongly NO NO NO to CEX!!!

Personally feel the only time a CEX listing would make sense is when the pros out weight the cost and clearly that isn't the case. When that day does come, I will be all for a CEX listing if it ever comes.

At the risk of incurring some down votes I'll try to just mention the points and be a devil's advocate as to why a CEX might be an important step.

Any project aiming to be a currency should try to increase its usability not just through horizontal integration but also through increasing its consumer base as much as possible. Why a CEX? Almost nobody within the crypto space ever has his first interaction through smart contracts, CEX are the point of sales/introduction to crypto for most people. While the disadvantage of CEXes are a dime a dozen, like centralized custodians for which we might have to negotiate, if we want to offer staking and the fact that they might dump any tokens given to them. If a CEX listing is done, I hope that the amount to be paid is in the form of dai that is in our treasury so as to avoid any senseless dumping. We should probably not offer staking services at the start, and just let the cex be an introduction or a platform to buy. Another advantage of cex is that we can move towards deeper order books something which we lack right now. Why do we want this at all? To become the native currency of crypto, you need to have the vision to see through the fact that ultimately we want to increase usability in terms of holder base (the normal people that use a currency the more it becomes the defacto standard) and horizontal integrations, we don't simply want ohm on a CEX we want other currencies in ohm denominated pairs. We have to start somewhere.