Summary:

In the past few weeks we have seen 2 proposals from market makers on the forum which have been discussed at length. OIP-58 was a sentiment check with the community on whether the two proposal were sufficient, and it passed with a strong majority of 90% for, 10% against. This OIP is launched to let the community decide which proposal they favor or if no market maker should be hired.

Proposal:

The proposals of both market makers are detailed out below. A lot of discussion took place in the GSR proposal, so I would encourage everyone to read through both post thoroughly to understand various opinions!

GSR proposal (OHM with clause to not trade on sohm/gohm markets):
https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/535-market-making-proposal-from-gsr/210

Wintermute proposal (gOHM):
https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/639-market-making-proposal-from-wintermute

OIP-58:
https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/653-oip-58-consider-hiring-a-market-maker-based-on-recent-proposal

Vote
Due to the significant majority on OIP 58, we will go to a snapshot vote 24 hours after posting this to the forum. The vote will last for 4 days. We will touch upon this OIP during the community call on wednesday to further answer any questions.

Yes - Hire GSR
Yes - Hire Wintermute
Yes - Hire Both
No - Don't hire GSR and Wintermute

Hire a market maker

This poll has ended.

    Sorry if I missed it but what is the benefit of hiring both? Would they each be active on a different exchange? Or is it mainly about Ohm vs sOhm/gOhm. At first glance, having both seems messy in my opinion.

    Expanding a bit: I feel Ohm is the most logical choice on exchanges. If we are meant to make Ohm one of the base pairs of DeFi then it should be treated as such. Long term we need to think about the mindset of getting on an exchange and trading against Ohm pairs and not gOhm/sOhm. Even as an intermediate I feel this may prove troublesome down the road. Even if that means that derivative instruments for Ohm may be harder to implement for the time being.

    Yes CEX holders will get diluted but the exchanges will need to implement custodial staking services like they already do for some coins.

      Remember, this is only the beginning : )

      Why would we hire GSR. From comments in that discussion I feel there are many downsides and not many upsides. Not sure the other deal is better either. (thinking of voting neither)

      Exciting to see two market makers find interest in Olympus. However, I am not sure how to feel about Wintermute's proposal of gOHM. Our native token is OHM and that is the one that should be listed on CEXes and not gOHM.

      Plus, gOHM is wrapped staked OHM which allows Wintermute to collect rebase rewards.

      We don't want to confuse new ohmies that are purchasing OHM on CEXes between OHM, sOHM, gOHM and should stick to OHM for marketing reasons.

        OHM is the token that should be traded. Therefore, GSR is the best choice.

        MrMochi looks like this post in the wintermute proposal outlines reasons for both, although the poster originally posted to propose we slow down to formalize a competitive selection process between any MMs that want to work with Olympus.

          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.

              Wallace900402

              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?

              HoyaSaxa I agree. I think this process is being rushed way too quickly and deserves much more thought and time to get right.

              collinm11 Yeah, saw that. I just don't think it would have added much time to the process, but thanks.

              • jqm likes this.

              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

              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!

                Graz

                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.

                MrMochi

                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.