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)?
I feel $OHM should be listed on CEX's, not $gOHM
If the cex buys gohm then fair enough but we can't dish out gohm for free. This is unfair to stakers that are doing 3,3
I just read we would give ohm, gohm to market makers for free. This is ridiculous. If they want ohm they can pay for it like the rest of us.
How much is the interest on the loan?
NO MARKET BUY NO PEACE
My feeling is that we've, yet again, jumped the gun on this one. In OIP-58 we agreed that we are interested in hiring a market maker to support us on CEXs. Good so far. Now we're deciding between two different proposals each of which proposes to provide liquidity for us using a completely different token. As such, all of the actual terms of the deal get abstracted away and this vote just becomes a proxy for whatever token you prefer to list (or to do nothing at all).
In my opinion the obvious next decision we need to make is to determine whether or not we want to list gOHM or OHM on these exchanges. After we determine that, as a community, then we can issue an RFP for MMs and see a competitive bidding process where we are actually voting on the terms of the deal, not the token.
Note upfront: I have made a proposal in a general forum item that we'd be happy to be employed as an additional market maker and we have proposed to market make gOHM and not OHM.
I want to point out the materially better value provided by OHM tokens lent out versus gOHM to a market maker/trader. For example, a simple comparison of price movements from Dec 1st on OHM vs. gOHM on Coingecko:
OHM went from a Dec 1st opening price of $813.57 to$ 452.61 as of the close of Dec 21st.
gOHM went from a Dec 1st opening price of $30,978 to $22,601 as of the close on Dec 21st.
Lets say, a trader shorted on Dec 1st, $10,000 of OHM while at the same time buying$ 10,000 of gOHM. As of close of Dec 21st, this short and long trade combination would have profited 1,732 dollars in a mere 21 days. So, of course, in this scenario, a trader wouldn't stake it (because there's none to stake). This comes mainly from the rebasement from OHM, and gives the token borrow significant value. Keep this example in mind and … that the option value alone isn't the value of the MM contract, but its BOTH the value of the option and token loan (and which one it is!)
Suicide appointing a market maker at this point. They are incentived to grow their bags which means shorting price to buy back in at lower price later. $OHM is already extremely oversold right now. Bad timing, very bad timing unless written agreement to long price and then stabilise after.
