• Proposal

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

SurfingChanticleer

I have just been following this channel just recently. To your point, we at Bastion Trading, feel it would be quite a privilege for us to present a proposal to the OHMies to market make on CEXes - and join in on a RFP bidding process. Of course, to be fair, Wintermute and GSR are highly experienced trading firms no doubt who can get the job done.

However, I have been thinking that our proposal would be more of a proof of work proposal, as opposed to receiving so much economics (a large notional of call options and a large notional of borrow for free) up front - in fact - a proposal that may complement the two current firms' ideas.

I want to note that a RFP selection process doesn't even have to result in simply one market maker chosen for the requested set of economics, just like a in a IPO process in tradfi - all the bookrunners and underwriters share a fee pool and in most cases there's several firms working on a deal. I would argue that for trading - as for an issuer - its better to have many market makers competing on bid/offer, volumes, and positioning.

As a brief introduction, Bastion Trading is a crypto trading firm, that has been trading crypto (trading arbitrage, market making, stat arbitrage) since 2017, and has traded billions in that time period. Currently, there's many other qualified trading firms in crypto with many different ideas and solutions (it can be overwhelming as well) - but well worth a look to look at the many choices.

Since the proposal is seemingly live, I'll leave it brief here, and if all of you would like to see another proposal or eventually this all goes to a RFP, we'd be happy to post it in an appropriate place (and/or time). Thanks for reading!

      YES, but with a RFP to select the best terms for the DAO, no free-loan for the MM, and an enforceable on chain contract.

      Even if it were only for a few hundreds or thousands of OHM, Olympus is an on chain institution and we should dictate our on chain contracts terms.

      TheSkyhopper This is great, looking forward to reading your proposal and others from other firms.

        I'm keen to onboard a market maker to help facilitate a bridge to CEXs, but as I've highlighted before: CEX listings introduces a risk of governance centralisation. I'm in favour of proceeding to vote on the offers that have been made thus far and discussions around each offer to be considered on their own merits.

        We also need to take the discussion around the long-term impact CEX inclusion can have on governance seriously. We need to expect CEX's to have a say in governance and, as they are a valid participant in the crypto-economy, I think they should have a seat at the table of the decentralised reserve bank we've building here. Before we land a CEX listing, though, we desperately need voting reform to front-run large vote accumulators from usurping governance control from the community.

        I'm cool with this but I have a few caveats:

        1- We wouldn't be "hiring" a MM in my view. There's money to be made by associating with Olympus when it launches on a CEX. Most MM's will find plenty of incentive there without us adding payment. The GSR loan was already generous enough. I would instead spend the resources on legal or, if at all possible, smart contracts to govern the entire operation. Whatever terms we decide on compliance will be paramount.

        2- As I mentioned in the previous GSR thread when discussing this: CEXs should have no say in our governance, at all. Zero. This needs to be written in stone, and heavily enforced. The gOHM pool they would be provided is not for voting but for the provision of a service to their clients, for which they will collect fees. In short, gOHM should be a product they sell and not a tool they wield. We should include using the gOHM for voting purposes as grounds for termination of the agreement, with penalties, a collateral or some other form (or forms) of guarantee. Governance is not yet on-chain, but it will be. We can't afford transgressions on this once it is, it could completely destroy OHM.

        Yes, but agree with common sentiment for running a competitive process to find best proposal as well as getting external legal support to craft agreement.

        Rochambeau

        I agree. This should be done after careful consideration and by looking at more bids. You bring up a great point on why we should be paying MM fees. I also feel like we should wait until the APY reaches 1000% before we list on exchanges.

          2 months later

          HestelBravo Interesting. Either way, Wintermute was trading GALA on DEXs. I followed multiple transactions on Etherscan.

            Write a Reply...