I agree audits should be done on a regular basis as is done with accounting practices
OIP-23 Audit for critical contracts
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 This is definitely a necessity, full approval.
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.
Better to pay in OHM, gives OHM an additional use case.
This is like a "duh", of course we should audit that, 
cryptocartesius 100% agree, should be a regular thing.
My sentiments exactly. 
In favor of the audit. The longer-term partnership is ambiguous. Does the $200k have anything to do with the longer term partnership (assuming not) and what does that mean exactly?
Just commenting to explicitly agree on this.
who does the audit? our team will choose high quality auditioners, right, and reevaluate their audit yourself?!
DDKingMidaz I love the idea of starting to use OHM/sOHM as a form of payment before the protocol leaves the alpha growth stage we are currently in. I think it will help with adoption and understanding of this very novel protocol & coin.
