• Proposal

  • OIP-58: Consider Hiring a Market Maker based on recent proposal

Summary:

In the past few days we have seen 2 proposals from market makers on the forum which have been discussed at length. This OIP is to gauge the sentiment if the community thinks it is beneficial to hire a market maker with potential CEX listings looming around the corner. If the community chooses for the option to hire a market maker, we will lauch a second OIP to vote for either (or both). This is done to reduce voting fragmentation and get a clear mandate from the community.

Proposal:

GSR proposal (OHM with clause to not trade on sohm/gohm markets):
https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/535-market-making-proposal-from-gsr/210

Wintermute proposal (gOHM):
https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/639-market-making-proposal-from-wintermute

Can we take steps to hire a market maker based on the proposals above is the vote we set forth in this OIP.

**A few considerations on why we would we would need a marketmaker have been explained by Zeus here:**

https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/535-market-making-proposal-from-gsr/64

**Another concern of Ohmies was if we could enforce this contract.**

The answer there is yes. The DAO has found someone to act as a counterparty for the contract and it can (and should) be enforced. Market makers deal with billions every day and would face much more reputational damage if they would not hold themselves to the contract as opposed to gaining the xx million they would by breaking it.

**Why don't we do an open forum where everyone can make a proposal?**

While this may be a good way to do this in the future, time sensitivity and risk of decision paralysis forces our hand here. If the community still think this should happen, I encourage you to vote accordingly on this proposal.

Vote:

Yes - We can advance to the next stage where an OIP would be created to vote for GSR or Wintermute
No - Do not hire a marketmaker based on the recent proposals.**

Should we hire a market maker based on the proposals made on the forum?

This poll has ended.

    Simply YES

    We rich, pay the world to make OHM digi res currency.

    Like Zeus said, whether we like it or not, cex listing will happen. Let's prepare ahead of time & make the most out of it. It's a yes from me.

    We should consider some better bidding process, where we have multiple market makers bid on the hire, no?

      I've worked and currently work with several market makers in crypto. They are totally needed and we should get one now before a CEX listing - in fact, most CEX's will require we have one before a listing anyway. So, this puts us ahead of the curve.

      • lpp likes this.

      Yes, CEX will happen whether we choose for it to or not. We should front-run that decision with a MM of our choice and terms.

      Wintermute worked with Gala Games. $GALA. Google what happened to them. Cause and effect is more complex of course but a yes from me.

        yes from me as well

        I think it's important CEXs work on their UI implementation of gOHM so that users can actually see their OHM rebasing every 8 hours

        Seeing your balance increase daily is a great feeling and one of the things that make Olympus unique. CEX users should be able to enjoy this as well

          Is there a reason we'd want to work with only one or a small handful of market makers, or is that a situation where we'd be willing/able to add more (larger?) market makers in the future?

          I think we should do it but I wouldn't want us to jump on the first people to come to us if that precludes us from working with other market makers later on.

          I guess I don't understand why Olympus needs to pay (either through options or interest free loans) market maker(s). As stated by Zeus, "listing is in my opinion is inevitable whether we like it or not."

          Market makers can make money off of ohm tokens, regardless of whether the community "hires" one (as seen in the inevitability of listing). It would be unwise to just accept the first two proposals put in front of the community. Maybe we do want to incentivize market making faster than would happen naturally, but shouldn't we be conducting a formal bidding process? Is a zero percent interest loan the best we can get, or will market makers, knowing they will be making money of spreads, be willing to pay interest rather than (in the case of GSR) getting a >1 million USD loan for free?

          Remember you aren't voting on whether or not to hire a market maker, you are voting on whether or not to accept the proposals from literally the first two market maker offers. Wartull's comment on the GSR proposal says they have been in talks with many market makers. I'd like to know if there was there a lot of negotiation done to get to GSR's proposal and what other market makers were saying in these talks, at least for some context if we are flat out refusing to have more formal bidding.

          Where is the time sensitivity that is forcing one's hand? I get (especially in Wintermute's proposal) that the amount being loaned isn't a huge fraction of the treasury, but this should be done right.

            I am strongly against any deal which is not forced by code based contracts. If CEX is inevitable then they can buy the bonds or swap. Both option is beneficial for the protocol.

            I am in favor of hiring a MM to get gOHM listed. However, Dao should run a formal RFP and bidding process to select a MM partner to ensure alignment of Olympus value and vision. It is also a necessary process to engage and educate community members.

            If listing on a CEX is inevitable, an RFP should go out and the best offers be considered. I would not recommend going with two unsolicited offers as a competitive process may prove more advantageous to the DAO.

              As stated by Zeus, "listing is in my opinion is inevitable whether we like it or not."

              So why pay MM? We're not in 2017 paying CEX to be listed. OHM marketcap and volume activity will promote itself, as in the case of Doge, and Shiba Inu. Feel that OHM should focus on LP revenue than marketing, as show by Tesla success story.

              Rochambeau I think this is a fair point. While I agree that we should try and get an early start on our terms for MMs/CEXs, and the two proposals we've gotten seem to show respect for how we want to run things. I do also agree that we should make sure we are getting the best deal possible before agreeing to anything, especially taking into account that we don't know how different the market conditions could be by the time the terms are up.