OIP-60: Hire a market maker
Gohm makes alot of sense compared right now due to our expansion phrase
Gohm gives exposure to the market cap only and does away with the complexity of rebasing for technical purposes and exchanges, this would ensure people who are on cex receive their rebase rewards
Also wintermute has to either return the full 750 gohm back or exercise their strike option. If it was just ohm then you could In theory just short sell it and rebuy after 12 months. Gohm prevents this possibility without significant risk
As much as we want ppl in defi, we should aim to cater to ppl in cefi and then let them find their way into defi once ohm becomes more usable in real world
- Edited
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!
Good reasonings all around, i'm voting neither right now as i think if OHM has gotten the attention of 2 MM's they can garner more and we have more time to make a better choice based on the comments on the wintermute thread. A better decision making process is the right move imo, since time is on our side in general for crypto and defi.
100% agree on this. gOHM will be too difficult for noobs to understand. Allow CEXs to use APIs for custodial staking.
Support the wintermute proposal. Not against the GSR one, but the gOHM makes much more sense in a multi-chain world. From a marketing perspective, do agree that OHM should be used as the brand is quite strong.
gOHM is OHM for the rest of us.
Adding someone like wintermute as MM for gOHM will help projects like ours that may want to bond or offer markets using gOHM.
At this point I kind of feel the first GSR proposal is the one I would go for. Of course there are advantages and challenges with both, but I wouldn't be apposed to both as one as the two can be afforded and properly managed.
If I HAD to choose, it would be Wintermute. But I believe it may be too early in our inception for a MM. OHM should be the token which is traded on CEX's but we are far away from that point due to still being in the growth stage.
The goal is for OHM to be the decentralised reserve currency and we should be aiming for that.
By getting a MM with gOHM and getting that on CEX's, I fear we are moving towards gOHM being the primary token of Olympus. This could be detrimental in the long run as the OHM token could fade into oblivion and not reach its reserve currency status.
To summarise, we should be doing this with the OHM token, but not now - it's too soon.
- Edited
Wartull I honestly think this project is great, but it's process is making thing harder for new comers to understand, these two proposals aren't bad by itself, they are bothing serving the goal to expand recognization of the project, but let me ask you this. A newbie heard OHM is great, then he goes to CEX and search for it which comes out a gOHM/XXX trading pair with major price difference, how likely do you think he would buy gOHM? And other ppl bought OHM on CEX may not even know this token could be staked. I mean, why do we have so many this and that kind of OHM? Can't we just have one name and have it all then expand the knowing of it? Just like not many could spell Louis Vuitton but everyone knows LV, and if you see a gLV would you buy it?
gOHM makes more sense, I feel that at the moment, it really needs to be simple and straightforward for cex users, to buy and hold/buy and forget, can be withdrawn to multiple chains, no dilution for cex users, cex can't take advantage of cex users that may be unaware of staking, index adjusted price etc.
Though the points for OHM makes a lot of sense too, this is a tough one, voted Wintermute but actually both might work.
Wallace900402 gOHM does rebase, remember the CEX will be in control of the keys, not the users. Therefore we don't want large wallets of CEXs having voting power.
Why though? I understand people may want to pump their bags but this is bad timing.
Hi all, once again to reiterate my points:
cexes will list OHM by themselves if they like, nothing you can do about it
its naive to be expecting them to enable staking, let alone rebasing, for users. cex users will most likely lose from OHM listing as staking and rebasing will be captured by exchanges. Even if exchanges enable staking, they'll never stake 100% because they will need to keep some OHM in hot wallets for transfers!
whether they list OHM or gOHM, they would have same voting possibility - nothing stops them from staking their OHM and vote with it
Pushing for listing gOHM would align liquidity not just across cexes but across other chains (where gOHM will prevail), thus enabling cexes to act as bridges
While Wintermute and GSR are both strong on cexes, its a trivial task for both of us to provide liquidity there - we did it for over hundred projects each
Wintermute is the strongest MM on defi at the moment, we can bridge liquidity across all other chains, which I think is a more important goal for Olympus (as it negates the forks to give just one example)
Hence I strongly believe Wintermute is the best choice. We thought this through pretty well and would be thrilled to partner up
@Wartull thanks for taking the time to outline some recent proposals and think about the next steps.
I applaud both GSR's and Wintermute's willingness to come to OlmypusDAO's forum and propose an idea and potential partnership. Our industry is made better by partnerships such as these.
It is in my opinion that we must incentivize more proactive use of the forum and OHM assets.
Decisions on this vote should be based on our perceptions of OHM's need to be market-made.
Do we think OHM has liquidity issues? If yes, then there is the answer.
I prefer CEX to be able to list gOHM for the users, rebase reward has been and continues to be the number 1 attractive point of OHM for the average user. If CEX list OHM without the ability to stake it since they don't understand how to use web 3, they will get diluted and doesn't enjoy the main point of OHM.
However, we need to address the governance side of gOHM. Either we blacklist the CEX wallet for casting a vote on snapshot, or together we can develop proxy voting system with the CEX (like developing email list based on the CEX database and proxy voting using email).
This is my two cents.
gOhm and wintermute make the most sense. Not fair to sell ohm to noobs without the rebase value. And gOhm will make it loudly clear the growth of our market cap and give a clean price comparison to btc and other tokens.
I think we should give GSR the option to use gOhm. Shortsellers will think twice with a rebasing index inside.
I wanted to address the OlympusDAO community and outline some of the key aspect of market making and our proposal and how it differs from that of Wintermute.
First, and I think this is fundamental, from previous conversations, exchanges are looking to list OHM, not so much gOHM. When CEX are evaluating tokens for listing, it is not a very mysterious process, they go down the list of crypto's by market cap and volume traded. That's why a loan of gOHM would not serve much purpose except dilute current holders.
It is true that rebasing and native staking are possible but not common, any listing on CEX should be accompanied by a proper conversation and a lot of retail education about the protocol; having a welcoming attitude towards listings will certainly help manage the process from the Olympus standpoint.
Wintermute and GSR are both strong on CEX's, just like we are also both very involved in DeFi, and it is similarly not an issue for either of us to bridge liquidity cross chain and mitigate this potential risk of forking - although hard to really see any fork dethrone the original (3,3).
GSR's proposal properly addresses the liquidity risk for OHM, but also is a LOT, LOT less expensive for Ohmies.
The repayment options in OHM are significantly further away due to the OHM rebasing.
I checked what the equivalent strike would be in OHM compared to the gOHM Wintermute proposal and it is below $120, reciprocally their strikes in gOHM to match ours would have to be over 10 times higher… I know $694,200 does not have the same ring to it, but that's what the strike should be if you wanted to compare fairly 
Whatever Olympus DAO decides, this process has been a unique chance to interact and genuinely connect with many in your community - GSR is grateful for it.
gsr_nyc I think the assumption that OHM will be trading above 500 in 12 months time (let alone above 1000) is pretty questionable. What will GSR do if OHM is worth $140 in 12 months time (our strike's 9bln valuation) and you simply dont have enough inventory to provide liquidity on key centralized exchanges? What will you do if market cap is same as now with less than a million USD of OHM inventory? My guess is you would submit a proposal for another loan, resulting in more dilution for DAO. Our proposal is simply more realistic and shows understanding of where everything is most likely heading.
I strongly believe we should be pushing for gOHM to be the main listed token everywhere and let OHM exist in the background, abstracted away by staking mechanics. It's true that exchanges are not going to be thrilled to list token with zero volume, but that's exactly where we, market makers, come in. Olympus is not an ordinary project and explaining to exchanges that listing gOHM would solve all their problems with regards to staking and rebases is much more realistic than expecting Binance or Coinbase to implement complex features.
And finally on the topic of defi - how do you plan to provide liquidity across L2s without converting OHM into gOHM (thus breaking the promise not to stake)?