Well I thought about this last night.
gOHM - Since gOHM is tied to basically the Market Cap and has a fixed amount - essentially is can be treated the same as any other non-rebasing token that has had all tokens issued, more people buy, price goes up.
OHM:gOHM - basically gOHM is Pegged - which is the INDEX x OHM market price.
The only thing that did set OHM apart (before it was forked) was the locked liquidity, and this is what gave it an advantage over other rebasing tokens. The non-liquidity value of the treasury does nothing for the market cap or for the benefit of OHMies - as we have seen with other forks that have allowed their tokens to fall below backing without any buybacks - the non-liquidity treasury is just a bag for no reason.
Having said that, the benefit of MMers is that they in effect lock more liquidity - therefore supporting the price/market cap and it is a direct benefit to OHMies.
What I would like to see is that the OHM non-liquidity pair treasury bag buys back the OHM tokens directly from the OHM Liquidity Pools (one of the USD peg : OHM pools) to acquire the OHM/gOHM for the market maker Loans. This way it doesn't dilute OHMie's OHM but instead puts the non-lp treasury to good use where it actually benefits OHMies increasing the price and market cap, rather than, as we have seen in other projects where the market price falls below the backing - the backing metric actually becomes an example of how the non-liquidity assets are of no benefit to holders.
This is an opportunity to put these bags to good use.
I will vote for both, but gOHM would be preferable to a MM, why would they take on the risk of the inflationary OHM, it is not different in betting on the ever inflating US dollar. In effect gOHM is no different to any other non rebasing token - other than the locked liquidity, and therefore is not different now to any other non-rebasing token on Olympus pro - but the non-liquid bags need to be used for some benefit - and here is an opportunity!