Kutu2 unfortunately the dumps even happen in the stock market all the time. I don’t know what other forms of payment we could provide it’s all convertible at the end of the day. If it’s paid in 100% Dai they could buy up OHm anyways then dump when it goes up.

    All for it. Things need to get done, and as Cart. said we’ll probably need a better framework going forward to give the community some expectations and assurances for such occurrences like this one.

    Did the auditors request OHM or this is being offered to them as a payment?

    Anything to reinforce the security of the protocol. I support this proposal/audit 1000%.

    Audits only add to the credibility. Bring them on.

    I agree with the need for an audit as it is a sound risk management practice. Personally, there should be a budget allotted for audits as necessary. Also what is the current practice in the DAO for engaging third parties?

    I agree audits should be done on a regular basis as is done with accounting practices

    cryptocartesius Yeah I love the idea of making this a standard practice that we undertake as Olympus develops more products and integrates with more protocols.

      The security of the protocol and all the Ohmie's hard earned funds is paramount. We also don't ever want to be "that" protocol that suffered an exploit that harmed users from other integrated protocols. If we have the budget for this, $200k is nothing in comparison to Olympus' reputation being tarnished and Ohmie's OHMs getting messed with.

        Wartull

        Wartull definitely in favor of this. Can we provide more details here on the specifics of the audit. What audit 3rd party will be performing the audit, etc…

            Makes a great deal of sense and definitely in favour.

            Two specific points:

            • Can the negotiation on the Service agreement for the audit include a clause around their holding the Ohm component of the payment for a specified time period?
            • If the arrangement is an ongoing Services-based arrangement (sounds like a good move to build a continuing partnership) then can the price be negotiated into an ongoing fee-based arrangement rather than project-based for these audits alone? I would assume ongoing audits given new product enhancements and as such if there is opportunity for extended partnership that would make sense (and be less of an up-front burden on the treasury as well).

            Wartull I agree with the proposal. I agree with cryptocartesius that a more formal process should also be adopted going forward. However, this proposal makes sense as it speeds up the process by a whole lot!

              Security = no brainer. I'm all for this proposal, and 200k is peanuts compared to the damage an exploit could cause.

              The security of the contracts is the most important. Allocate as much as you need money to make it happen properly. High security will bring more new Homies.

              Whenever a contract is changed or a new one added, there should always be an audit, just to be safe. So I'm definitely for this. The cost of doing this stands in no contrast to what exploits cost.

              Better safe(r) than sorry.

              An added bonus is that audits also might show the developers some good practices they can adopt for the future, even if no critical bugs are discovered.

              👍

              This is like a "duh", of course we should audit that, 😂