0xcrypto

  • Aug 7, 2023
  • Joined Jun 12, 2023
  • In TAP-26A - Expansion of Vendor Finance Partnership

    Joel33 Because this appears to be a high risk undertaking (with a new and untested version carrying a substantial centralization risk based on the latest audit), it is important for us to establish milestones based on Vendor's capability to attract TVL from sources other than Olympus.

    When you run out of arguments, it is noticeable that you tend to resort to attacking the integrity of others. This behavior raises serious questions about your real intention. Rather than addressing the actual points being discussed, you choose to undermine the character or integrity of the individuals involved, which is highly questionable and greatly diminishes the credibility of the conversation. Constructive dialogue should be grounded in logical reasoning, evidence, and respectful engagement, avoiding personal attacks.

      • In TAP-26A - Expansion of Vendor Finance Partnership

        lorem

        The deployment should be contingent on Vendor successfully achieving their milestones to attract their own TVL on v2 outside of Olympus, rather than relying on a fixed deployment based solely on timing. Additionally, considering that only 50% currently support deploying the pool, it might be prudent to reconsider if it's too early to proceed to the Snapshot vote…

          • In TAP-26A - Expansion of Vendor Finance Partnership

            unbanksy33 I understand and value your perspective regarding the necessity of borrowing solutions for OHM. However, when contemplating the allocation of $5 million into a newly released v2, which currently only possesses $250k in TVL and lacks extensive testing, it becomes essential to evaluate the potential risks and rewards. It is also crucial to bear in mind that even seemingly minor alterations of the smart contract can significantly impact its security and might also open up new attack vectors.

            To mitigate the associated risks and adopt a more cautious approach, I suggest that our investment be contingent upon Vendor achieving specific milestones. For example, we could initiate our deployment with $100k, already representing a 40% of their total v2 TVL. Subsequently, as Vendor v2 attains predetermined thresholds, such as reaching $1 million TVL (excluding our investment), we can gradually increase our commitment.

            By adopting this approach, we can effectively monitor the development and stability of the v2 platform while minimizing our exposure during its initial stages. Implementing milestones linked to Vendor's performance enables us to establish a measured and responsible investment strategy.

            • In TAP-26 - Expansion of Vendor Finance Partnership

              thanks for elaborating on the bug bounty, taiga, appreciated. so to summarize: i) neither v1 nor v2 have a proper bug bounty program in place, ii) the existing audit report conducted by zelic indicates a high level of centralization, which increases the risk of a rug pull (even more worrisome considering vendor is not doxed), iii) olympus investing up to $5m would mean that we'd account for >95% of vendor's future TVL and iv) the vendor team itself is not assuming any risk.

              curious to hear what the rest of the community thinks about this but imho this doesn't sound like a favorable deal for Ohmies.

              • In TAP-26 - Expansion of Vendor Finance Partnership

                0xTaiga hi taiga, could you please point me towards your bug bounty program? thanks

                  • In TAP-26 - Expansion of Vendor Finance Partnership

                    USD 5m seems way too high, also considering the fact that the initially deployed $500k already account for >60% of Vendor's TVL. seems a bit risky to me.