• General

  • OIP Discussion: Wonderland Partnership & Add $TIME in Ohm Treasury

pottedmeat no, i very clearly stated it would be mutually owned on both sides, as per the proposal, time would again add ohm to their treasury the same as we add time to ohm's, that's the only way this makes sense and creates the flywheel / feedback loop by introducing ohm-time PoL LP and bonds for both wonderland and olympus

or maybe i wasn't clear on that. so to be clear, this proposal is for both ohm to add time and time to add ohm mutually together, and create a shared PoL of ohm-time

    Dom98000 Olympus doesn't have a treasury for the primary goal of generating income. Olympus has a treasury for the primary goal of trust. Holding TIME does more to undermine trust in OHM as a currency than to build it.

      a lot of ongoing discussion happening on discord, however, i would prefer it happened here, so instead im gunna post some of my replies for visibility:

      pottedmeat:

      You're right that it's not about money-making. I don't know what to tell you. A cornerstone of becoming a reserve currency is trust. And this conversation is, in general, about trust.

      my reply:

      and trust is also about incentives and alignment, trust that they wont rug themselves to rug us if we have time in our treasury they would have to rug themselves for us to be hurt, the fact of the matter is, they are building a successful treasury and ecosystem growth around very powerful protocols that is sufficiently decentralized (abracadabra and popsicle)

      To those in favor of Time, how would you justify Time's premium? OHM could just purchase those assets in Time's treasury without exposure to all the extra risk assumptions and drama.

      Market liquidity dominance of the PoL LPs on AVAX, treasury yields and outputs, flywheel effect of OHM-TIME shared PoL bonding, and a monopoly on the limited capacity caldrons of Abra and sSpell protocol rev which only Wonderland has direct exposure to by default without having to purchase it on the market. And the fact that you can't just outright purchase those assets on the market or wouldn't make sense to. It was sold to Wonderland's treasury through their bonding program just like Olympus' assets were through our bonding program. So through TIME we gain proxy exposure to their treasury growth and them ours mutually to create a feedback loop.

        Winnal We would also purchase those assets through Bonding or OTC (if we chose to do so).

        To make sure I understand. Premium is justified by:

        • LP fees from their POL
        • Yield from Treasury farming strategies
        • Spell fees accrued through Spell owned?

        If you run the numbers on those, does that actually justify the premium?

            Questions that I think need answered regarding Time:

            • What is their vision? What's their goal? That is very unclear to me.
            • When will they decentralize?
            • When will founders stop trading out of their personal wallets on behalf of Time?
            • How would a partnership with Time move Olympus closer to its end goal?

            I fear that any deal with Time would move Olympus further from decentralization and even closer toward regulatory pressure.

              This seems more about wonderland trying to remain relevant by chaining itself to ohm as we begin our next phase of growth. They can buy ohm as a treasury deposit if they like, but there really aren't any synergies here that benefit ohm. They're simply not 3,3 and we don't really need them to buy ohm either.

                JFry4 If you adjust it to the provable treasury growth against the inflation + the RFV, as long as it's sustainable, I would say a 2-3x premium is reasonable. Even OHM is tradable at a similar premium, so at parity, and with the feedback loop and mutual growth you could arguably increase that premium on both ends.

                And market timing wise, both OHM and TIME seem to be near market bottom, so it would be the ideal time to strike this partnership.

                  el_dan0 No, it's about the potential feedback loop and additional value generation through a dual treasury DAO2DAO ecosystem and policy framework (that are on par with each other in terms of value and growth potential), in addition to the mutually owned PoL OHM-TIME LP bonds and revenue + liquidity ownership.

                    Ruangwith

                    Ok so it's a long story but short version is: The entire reason TIME came about was because their lead dev, Dani, pitched to Zeus and co that the fork would be backed by ohm to a significant degree. He made his fork, but didn't follow through on buying the ohm to use as treasury backing as agreed, only buying a little bit and only when it was dipping hard. He basically jerked everyone around until people lost faith he was going to follow through, then claimed he was being mistreated and used that as his reason for not following through. He then tried to liquidate ohmies by dumping all the ohm he had bought (he even made a tweet about it so there's evidence of this intent). Then, he took abra out of Olympus pro program for no reason other than spite.

                    He then proceeded to use this same strategy to milk Trader Joe of it's goodwill and resources before betraying them as well, claiming mistreatment and dumping JOE. He claims to want collaboration, but his actions have been anything but 3,3 with literally everyone thats tried to work with them.

                        JFry4 Cross-chain liquidity ownership of decentralized assets and a productive protocol ecosystem to create value and incentive to use OHM as a currency base pair, with inclusion of TIME, would further Olympus' goal of a decentralized reserve currency. TIME brings a proxy exposure to the most amount of liquidity without having to compete against grabbing that liquidity on AVAX which they have already established dominance over just like Olympus did on ETH. So connecting the two together would only exponentiate the growth and perpetuate the end goal.

                        The other three questions would have to be answered and laid out by their core team perhaps through an AMA between Wonderland and Olympus. But if they can clearly answer those three questions, the most important question I have answered which is the potential being achieved, rather than the issues or concerns that hinders the potential from being achieved being the other questions.

                          el_dan0 So perhaps now the basis of the partnership should be altered, instead of TIME being backed by OHM (which seems more like just a back-rubbing than real partnership and mutual benefit), Time AND Ohm are both mutually growing together creating a flywheel effect. That's what's different from the original partnership and this one, which given the circumstances, with Wonderland having established itself on its own it makes sense to reconsider the prospects and look through another view of the overarching benefits and goals which are in alignment of achieving greater value and reserve backing for both treasuries and DAOs.

                          I feel like fundamental misalignment caused a lot of backlash and also accusations that can neither be proven nor disproven leaving everyone in turmoil. If a more clear strategic policy and proposal can be curated and adopted and makes more sense on mutual terms then I think there's far more to gain than there is to lose. At the worst case, both sides dump the other's token but it could be potentially avoided through a swap-back or something where we just get OHM from their treasury returned in return for their TIME. In terms of the OHM-TIME PoL bonds they would be discontinued and the assets can be withdrawn 50/50.

                          Too many backroom deals and partnerships without a community voted and structured agreement caused this imo. This is exactly the testament of why a DAO must prove it's decentralization through the community-backed policymaking and clear incentives and alignment to achieve a shared goal.

                              Winnal It was literally his proposal to do it though, so I think this whole thing about misalignment is not reality. He wanted to get the fork done, so he said what he had to say to get it done. To be fair, had he said he wasn't going to do the backing and/or wanted ohm to use his fork as treasury as a condition, that would've been DOA. So I see why he did it, but it still makes him dishonest at worst, and at best, incompetent to see that the proposal wouldn't work. I'm leaning toward machiavellian practices, as the other evidence points to dishonesty rather than incompetence. Had he come to the ohm community to renegotiate a lower backing % or delaying it, the community may have been receptive. But he didn't, choosing to find a reason to reneg on the deal. The way they operate over there is not consistent with this community. I'll leave it there

                                  el_dan0 Yeah, but from the onset it wasn't really anything that really added value whereas this proposal would bring tremendous value to both sides at this stage. Again, it was more of a back-rubbing and imo an overreaction that he didn't keep his word. It didn't matter in the end, for both sides. This on the other hand, would.

                                      el_dan0 Ha, yeah, I forgot that when Dani sold, he said that he was hoping it would kill the price.

                                        Thanks for your thoughts Winnal - it would be a huge reputational risk to associate with Wonderland because they repeatedly treat their partners poorly and renege on their commitments - any extra value from a partnership would be outweighed by the immeasurable economic cost of lost reputation caused by the association

                                          Hi Winnal,

                                          Thanks for writing out this proposal, I like the play on words with the phrase Time in the DAO.

                                          I would personally vote against a partnership with Dani or Sifu on the basis that their governance is not decentralized and they are not in any meaningful sense of the word a DAO. When asked what constitutes TIME being the largest DAO Dani replied "Number of holders and treasury". This definition of a DAO is not in line with what I understand Olympus' vision of a DAO is which is well outlined on the DAO section of the Ethereum website:

                                          Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs)

                                          • Member-owned communities without centralized leadership.

                                          • A safe way to collaborate with internet strangers.

                                          • A safe place to commit funds to a specific cause.

                                          As pottedmeat outlined above. Dani's projects are currently organized in a centralized way. In my opinion it is misleading for them to continue representing themselves as a DAO, without any meaningful steps in transitioning to being a DAO.

                                          If we were to consider this proposal we would have to justify why we are breaking with the pattern of not having centralized stablecoins such as USDC etc in the treasury. In some regards USD coin stables would consitute less of a keyman risk then working with Dani/Sifu projects. e.g what happens to their projects if they become incapacitated? In the case of USDC their organizational structures are more decentralized than Dani/Sifu. Even with this being the case, it's my understanding the Olympus treasury focuses on assets which are permissionless.

                                          Lastly, in my experience, it's very difficult to rebuild trust once it has been broken. However you explain the breakdown in trust between Dani & Olympus you can't deny that there has been a breakdown in trust. Olympus has approaching 60 other partners and there are many more keen to work with Olympus where there is not a break in trust that needs to be managed. I would argue it would be less taxing to focus our efforts on partners where our operational philosophies are more aligned.

                                          Thanks again for starting the conversation, putting up OIPs and having them rigorousnessly assessed is hard work and I appreciate your efforts.

                                          I am completely against anything Wonderland/TIME related until initial promises are not kept. 33% of Wonderland treasury for Olympus was a handshake deal agreed on by Dani. Before this is not settled no further steps should be taken.

                                          Write a Reply...