Bento

I 100% support the allocation. Howeever, I do wonder if we might prefer to stake FRAX in Curve directly instead of with Convex. While this would have the obvious downside of having to allocate DAO resources to managing the claiming of CRV rewards and manually boosting the FRAX pool, it would also enable the DAO to participate in CRV governance.

I think we have all seen how beneficial our relationship with Sushi has been in terms of boosted Sushi rewards. If we take the long view, we could pursue a similar relationship with Curve and keep in mind that OHM could eventually be part of a Curve v2 pool like Tricrypto, and it will be beneficial to have a voice in that discussion when the time comes.

Again, I am 100% in favor of allocating FRAX to stake on Curve, but I think its worth considering managing the position ourselves directly instead of through Convex.

I voted yes because I think a more measured approach would be more appropriate with the goal to first be to understand what a CEX listing would entail and how it would impact the protocol and the underlying game theory.

Some questions that first come to mind:

• Would we list OHM, sOHM, or both?
• Some exchanges (FTX, Coinbase, etc.) allow staking for some coins that they list. Is this a possibility for OHM?
• If the exchange does offer staking are we comfortable giving voting power in the form of sOHM to centralized entities like exchanges?
• What is the time frame for a listing and are there any requirements that a protocol must meet in order to be listed?
• What kind of marketing or other services would the exchange provide (if any)?
• How is the game theory affected if staking is not provided by the CEX and a significant percentage of OHM remains unstaked?

Overall, I tend to agree that it is too early for a direct CEX listing, but instead I propose allocating DAO resources to answering these types of questions so when the time is right we have a clear understanding of what it will mean to list OHM (or sOHM!) on a CEX.

One thing I want to point out for the people that are concerned about liquidations introducing more volatility to OHM: The single largest day of liquidations in $ on Defi lending platforms was on 02/22/21, which had about $129m in liquidations, vs. a TVL in lending protocols of 8.973b, meaning about 1.40% of the TVL in lending protocols was liquidated. Lets say the Fuse pool is able to capture half of the sOHM that is staked. Given our current marketcap of $132m and that 90% of supply is staked, we end up with about $60m in wOHM as collateral in the Fuse pool. Using the 1.40% figure from 02/22/21, this would equal about $840k of wOHM being liquidated, or about .06% of current supply.

However, I think this scenario is very unlikely for the following reasons:

• The collateral threshold that is being discussed has been in the 20-30% range, which would mean that OHM price would have to drop by 70-80% to trigger a liquidation for someone who borrowed the max amount of DAI from the pool.
• Given the high collateral threshold, if price is dropping, those who borrowed against their wOHM in the pool should have enough time to manage their positions before being liquidated, I dont foresee that kind of drop happening without everyone being aware that they need to add more collateral.
• wOHM should be increasing in value as time goes on due to staking rewards, therefore lowering the ratio of borrowed DAI to wOHM collateral and decreasing the likelihood of a liquidation event.

Additionally, I don't think at our current market cap a 840k sell off would really matter that much in the long term and we would recover.

Some caveats to the above numbers:

• This is pretty rough back of the napkin math, and is just to illustrate a scenario where liquidations could happen and what those numbers might look like at current MC.
• Data for Defi lending/liquidations was taken from Debank, you can play with the numbers here: Debank Lending TVL

luxophyBBZG
My question is if we dont allow lending wOHM on Fuse, but only allow OHM, then why would anyone use it? Like you said at current APY you are essentially getting 10x leverage. That exceeds the amount of leverage that you can get through just staking OHM on Fuse by an order of magnitude, and just staking OHM still has liquidation risks that could induce a selloff. At that point why would there be incentive to use Fuse at all? The integration wouldn't be worth it.

I think it is a valid point though that we should separate out the proposal of wOHM and wOHM on Fuse. Though if wOHM proposal goes through, im not sure if there is anything technically preventing wOHM from being used on Fuse or on other protocols like Fuse so it may be a moot point.

A lot of great discussion in the discord has taken place regarding how to manage a sustainable APY for staking OHM. This is an attempt to formalize that discussion and document it so all of our ohmies can easily access it.

I think it might be helpful to first establish reference timeframes for this discussion to avoid any confusion that may arise when discussing short, mid, and long term goals.

Short term: the next 3-6 months
Mid term: 6-12 months
Long term: 1-2 years
Very long term: 2+ years

Some additional thoughts to help guide the discussion:

• One of the primary reasons for APY being high is to attract new participants and build network effects. How long does this need to last? Will a drop to 80k APY scare off new participants? What about to 50k?
• Long term, our current APY is not sustainable and decreasing APY will in turn increase our runway. How fast/slow should APY be decreased? Is there a specific runway to target?
• What additional factors do we need to consider when discussing APY? Bonding? Gaining yield on treasury assets? Additional categories of treasury assets (eth, btc, etc.)?

As an outcome of this discussion, I would like to be able to create a roadmap/framework that we could use to guide future governance proposals and also to serve as resource for educating new/potential ohmies on the long term goals of the project.