OHM is the token that should be traded. Therefore, GSR is the best choice.
OIP-60: Hire a market maker
Jawesome I respectfully disagree, the whole purpose of $OHM is for it to be staked. So for new ohmies trading OHM on CEX, they will need to move them off exchanges and stake them on Olympus's website. However, with gOHM, the Market maker is NOT getting the rebases, it's just the index, hence the quantity of gOHM will not change, simply the price. Therefore if people are trading gOHM on CEX, they are also receiving the benefit of rebases/index.
qwercus Yes, normally I've read the Wintermute proposal but I seemed to have missed the logic in hiring both firms? It seems like an absolute mess to have an exchange both have Ohm and gOhm pairings. So I would love to hear from people who feel that is the way forward.
Not totally against slowing down the process, originally I was a bit on the fence but if 90% of the community wants to onboard a MM then I'd use my vote for a Ohm based exchange listing.
I'd like to see Olympus put together an RFP to the market maker community to see what/how many other market makers would have interest and then make a decision to accept one (or more) or none. Not against the concept at all, just would like to see what other proposals could come in.
However, with gOHM, the Market maker is NOT getting the rebases, it's just the index, hence the quantity of gOHM will not change, simply the price.
Therefore if people are trading gOHM on CEX, they are also receiving the benefit of rebases/index.
I'm not following. How can both of these statements be true?
gOhm does actually rebase just like sOhm. It's just wrapped under an index denominator. But I'm guessing we're mostly discussing semantics?
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.