Only if its 33.33% though 🙂,
(3,3)

In general I like the spirit of the proposal, and think it is a wise decision to put assets to work in this manner. Will there be specific criteria used to determine which pools we stake in within those protocols? If so, what are those criteria? If not, I think there definitely should be some consideration towards a framework for choosing specific pools within those approved protocols even if it's something as simple as we diversify across the top x pools based on TVL, APR, or some other metric?

Similarly, there should be a framework for adding future protocols before bringing the protocol to the DAO for a vote. I think these things need to be thought through & decided upon prior to a final vote on OIP-20.

I know this may seem like additional burden placed on the managers, however, thinking through these things now and having specific criteria & frameworks in place will help to achieve the stated goal of "managing our treasury assets with agility, without the need to go through a (lengthy) governance cycle." It will also help build trust between the asset holders and the managers of the treasury as there will be standards in place. Should something go wrong the managers can attest to the fact that they acted in accordance with the criteria and the frameworks set forth and voted on by everyone.

    Definitely for, but any more reasoning on choice of 33%, or what allocation is still conservative but maximizes passive yield? Since these are excess reserves, why not something a bit higher like 69% (33%33% to make 3,3-ers happy)? The protocol would still have a lot of excess liquidity. And I assume we could quickly withdraw if liquidity is needed.

      Question about the language here. The only whitelisted protocols are AAVE SUSHI and Convex, so would this exclude Curve? Seeing how Convex and Curve go hand in hand I think it would make sense to add CRV to the whitelist, would you agree?

      Go for it!!!!!!! this is a great move forwards!!

      kowboy Mainly to reduce risk. If any of these are exploited we would lose a significant portion of our treasury. Therefor being extremely cautious is key here!

        fiatfill

        Great points, on the whitelisted protocols they will always have to be voted upon! So say we want to add Yearn, a vote will have to be done before we can add to it.

        On which pools we deploy in, it will be mainly DAI or Frax pools for now, no LP of sorts.

          @Pasta brought up a good point on the Discord about other chains.

          Would like feedback around sentiments of this proposal possibly exploring chains outside of L1 ETH.

          My current temperature is that I would only like to consider deploying assets from our treasury on L1 ETH protocols.

          I am for this proposal as it is written.

          What's the definition of 'excess' reserve?

            If you dont make money while you sleep, yo will work for the rest of your live. LETS MAKE THIS MONEY WORK! 110% FOR IT!

            I would strongly recommend we also consider potential gradually expanding the whitelisted protocols to include non-Eth projects with very high quality developers. The size of the investment would not need to be large to generate significant outperformance. E.g. Compare an sp500 index vs. a portfolio with 99% sp500 and 1% btc.

            In addition to all of the great work going into Olympus Pro, and partnerships with Ethereum bluechips, we should consider safe L1s, interchain bridges, and projects with very clear real-world use cases. e.g. Atom, Akt, Osmo, Rune, Rowan.

            Wartull

            Would also give future consideration to addition of Barnbridge protocol for conservative investment into locked senior bonds ie. srETH. Nice stable yields, thanks!

              How would the passive yield income be distributed to all Ohmies?