Bigbabol

  • May 12, 2022
  • Joined Apr 17, 2021
  • In Request for Comment - Implement Leadership Council

    tex I agree on urgency, and possibility of the process becoming a problem instead of a solution. But also would love to see clear specification of how Council will operate and report as asked by others above.

    Once those agreed, could we phrase this proposal as Interim Council with 6+6 months mandate?
    - In first 6 months Council would commit to develop and implement [DAO-WIDE 4] Decentralize Operations based on agreed approach
    - If above implemented Interim Council mandate is extended for additional 6 months, if failed Strategos and Council members give their mandates for a vote to the wider community, by this time we should have Emergency Council ready to step in if needed.
    - would suggest 3-month mark where Strategos and Council members will vote for continuation or removal of individual Council members.
    - also it would be good to have a nominated mediator outside Strategos/Council that could handle disputes

    • In Request for Comment - Implement Leadership Council

      tex definitely a step in the right direction, and thank you for pushing it through. Given the reputation of proposed council members I have no problem voting yes but I do agree that smart major points have been raised in discussion above that can prove benefitial:

      - on-chain governance should be top priority and we should attach deadline to it (March 2023 will be way too late)
      - split the proposal into two votes = Council framework & Council Members
      - vote per Council Member
      - role definitions & candidates difersity
      - stratregy & brand/marketing responsible members
      - introduce 1/3 rolling for council members
      - emergency dao

      We take great pride of our community, and it might be a positive message to elect additional two community members (1 old ohmie + 1 new ohmie) to voice community concerns to the Council. Two just to keep odd number of council members if there would be a brand/marketing Council member as suggested above this would be 1 community member.

      • In Incubator Report & Incubator v2 request for comment

        tex can't talk for the rest of the team but I agree that given the circumstances best thing we can do is to sit down and find the best way forward in a constructive and transparent manner.

        • In Request for comment: Grants v1 Report & Grants v2

          I am biased but to ease undrexposed ohmies minds this is the team that lives Olympus values daily. Being humble, open, transparent, meticulous in their due diligence, and working relentlessly to make econohmy the reality. Above report is great example of that. Ohmazing work shrooms! Looking forward to your next chapter!

        • In Incubator Report & Incubator v2 request for comment

          electo imho your perspective is right. The thing to understand is that Benchmark Score Evaluation Framework is a living organism, same as market we are operating in, and will definitely be adapted as we go. Such comments as yours help us in reviewing it and finetuning. I'd expect that kind of (important) detail to become decision factor once number of applications multiplies. For now we need more quality applicants to go through entire process to pinpoint areas where framework needs improvement.

          4. We already have the practice of disclosing conflict of interest to team members if that is what you were reffering to?

          6. thank you for thinking about it, can't speak for entire team but my personal opinion is that we are still young and unknown so our primary concern should be delivering outstanding results in following months, not the comp which has been fair so far.

          • In Incubator Report & Incubator v2 request for comment

            electo thanks for valuable input. Many already on our radar. When you say "partnerships team" in bullets 4 & 6 you are reffering to Incubator partners not our own partnerships team, right?
            Point 1. As we have stated we have developed robust Due Diligence process where Olympus utiliy is one of 5 main categories which include Culture fit, Olympus Values fit, Olympus Utiity, Security, Project evaluations.
            Olympus Utility/Value being scored as:
            Olympus (O)

            đź’ˇ Utility (U)

            • 1 point - protocol brings utility to OHM

            • 0 points - does not bring utility

            Value ($)

            • 1 point - protocol generates extra revenue for Olympus

            • 0 points - does not generate extra revenue

            Network (N)

            • 1 point - protocol helps onboard new Ohmies or builds Ohmie loyalty

            • 0 points - does not help onboard new Ohmies or build Ohmie loyalty

            O = U + $ + N

            Point 4. can you clarify which disclosure items you find relevant / would like to see
            Point 6. keen on looking at it, but we should be aware that it could be double edged sword. Namely because most teams that require funding need it around launch, we on the other hand have capped investment limit that might become limiting factor in such case (portion on launch vs bonus).

              • In Incubator Report & Incubator v2 request for comment

                hOHMwardbound First of all thanks for all the help and support you have provided us over the past few months, and looking forward to our future cooperation. 

                As Mark already stated above, the proposed $3mm is not compounding. It is a quarterly allocation we can count on. What we do not spend stays in the treasury. Our primary goal is to bring added value to Olympus and Ohmies, not to burn through allocation. Our Due Diligence process is not only robust but also very restrictive which resulted in less than 4% of Applicants Incubated, and another 7% went to community vote as Launch Partners during Pilot.

                It is important to emphasize that applicants that pass our due diligence process are not immediately eligible for investment. Those are handed over for the vote to the 7 member Committee in which majority are non-incubator contributors, and heavy hitters known to ask tough questions (JaLa, Tex, Indigo, Unbanksy). Launch Partners are on the other hand required to pass Community vote.

                I hope this gives you confidence that we do not invest lightly.

                On the other hand we should bear in mind that we have just started. Although Pilot was a success, the fair conclusion is that the wider crypto community is not aware of us. We are expecting to ramp up both our communication and presence in the investment community in Q2-Q3. On top of it our Incubatees and Launch Partners will be our best ambassadors - we are already seeing project referrals from them. Only thing holding us back is the market downturn. When those wheels get into motion the number of applicants, and subsequently investments will increase. Worst thing that we could do is stop ourselves from capturing those opportunities, especially when Pilot results show double digit multiples for every $1 invested.

                On top of it we are suggesting widening the net with the Sporos program which by itself should mean a higher number of applicants, as well as additional full time team members.

                We have already started tracking costs, as well as launched project performance. We are aiming at having more robust reports ready for Q1 report, and will share the initial table today during AMA. 

                Given above, it is safe to conclude that the risk for DAO is minimal because resources are allocated not transferred, the Incubator team has proven to handle given resources responsibly, and ROI so far is very attractive.

                Would it be possible to stipulate at which market conditions Incubator budget would be unprofitable, and predefine the cuts? We could add those parameters to new OIP and all be clear on the conditions.

                • In OIP-63: Reward rate adjustment

                  Kelsey I hear you fren. But being caught off guard means that someone didn't take the time to understand what was agreed in August.

                  • In OIP-63: Reward rate adjustment

                    Kelsey well discussion is describing it as bad time. It will always impact someone who just joined. Same happened to me only the dip back then was not 2x but 5x. Everyone reacts the same first time.

                    There is nothing abrupt about it. It is a fact based on OIP - 18. There are few calculators available that project it to happen around the same time = end of December mid January. Why claiming its abrupt? If vote passes it will take it additional 4 weeks to reach targeted rate so closer to the end of the January.

                    It's interesting how nobody was complaining that through entire period since OIP -18 RR actually wasn't lowering but stayed constantly in the upper band although supply increased 6 times.

                      • In OIP-63: Reward rate adjustment

                        It's never good time to make big decisions.

                        I have had same concerns as many of you during OIP-18 (feel free to check) but the bottom line is that you either believe that this team is doing everything in their power to fulfill Olympus vision, or you don't.

                        A month or two doesn't matter if you are here for the longterm. If you haven't held ETH or BTC pre 2018, you might have envyed those HODLing them since, but you cannot comprehend the pain they have been through to get here. OHM is same play imho - it's about supporting big vision that relies on trust, freedom and inclusiveness, but understanding that there are many serious obstacles along the way that can break it.

                        All I have experienced so far makes me trust that this team is actively anticipating those obstacles, and steering Olympus towards fulfiling its vision.

                        Fully agree with actively using lower APY in marketing communication, and that it's of paramount importance that all staked holders including gOHM must be allowed to vote for OIP-63 @shadow

                        • In Balancer Pool implementation & LBP funding approval - request for comment

                          absolutely supporting it. Clear, detailed, and it makes sense.

                        • In OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction

                          shadow

                          explanations definitely should help. Can you address following during todays call:

                          • please make sure its recorded
                          • Can we create more detailed framework, embed it into protocol and let it do its thing automatically? pros and cons
                          • Can we create Aludel like reward program? pros and cons
                          • Is policy team working on voting power imbalance i.e. 3% controlling 71% vote. If we cannot make tiered reward rate mechanism, can we make a tiered voting where 75% of voting power would be in hands of 97%. This way 3% would need to make extra effort of creating multiple wallets if they want to push through something that actual community doesn't approve of. If possible this should be some kind of floating mechanism that would adapt as % change in future.
                            • In OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction
                            • In OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction

                              Although I 100% support the proposal, and the logic behind it, I will probably vote NO the reason being as follows:

                              Question for policy team members:

                              Do any of you have wife/husband and kids, or longterm relationship? 

                              Can those of you who have, remember how many times you were right in an argument but you accepted compromise for the sake of “peace in the house”?

                              Well this is that kind of situation here and now.  

                              You are 100% right, and you know that compromise of 20 days on top of 3 weeks is actually safe protocol wise. So whats stopping you from doing the right thing for the “peace in the house”?

                              • protocol is healthy, and there is almost no short term risk
                              • imho framework reduction should be integrated in protocol and automatic - no vote on further reductions it just happens and everyone is aware of it (but we can vote to postpone any upcoming reduction if situation would require it)
                              • any potential partnership will take at least a month to finalize
                              • any potential partner will get a clear picture how reduction would work via framework
                              • In OIP-18: Reward rate framework and reduction

                                As said in discord  my opinion is that this OIP is poorly drafted given potential negative impact it might have on (3,3).

                                Now, not to say it shouldn’t be done, or that having a framework is bad thing, it just lacks clear and detailed explanations. Devil is in the details, and road to failure is paved with good intentions as history teaches us. I’ll give my best shot at being as constructive as possible for my smooth brain.

                                1. Will this keep my Market cap share i.e. if currently I hold 0,001% of MC, will I keep that same 0,001% at 1b supply? If yes example calculation based on proposal should be added because it would logically explain which return could someone expect if we reach certain MC.

                                2. Logic behind such steep rate reduction from 1m - to 100m supply is unclear. Why those exact figures, and not higher or lower? Same question for rest of the table.

                                3. Framework table is heavily misleading because of Min/Max. I’d suggest to create spreadsheet and curve graph with rate/APY reduction tied to 1m supply increase. This way it would be much clearer to understand that MIN is at top of the range, and MAX is at current point. It would allow us to put this on autopilot, and avoid these discussions down the road. Add a simple calculator tied to it.

                                4. I get it that giving timeframe is potential liability, but we should be able to say: If all going according to plan we MIGHT reach 10m in 8-12 months, and 100m in best case scenario in 24 months.

                                5. We are introducing market price parameter but we cannot give a spread we would be targeting, so it creates confusion. Why not adding inverse bonds in the same time with clear thresholds to increase confidence? Or just tie this part of discussion to RFV, or other parameter we have decent control over.

                                6. We should give clear reasoning why current APY is preventing us from new partnerships, and list which ones are we talking about to have all cards on the table.

                                7. Not same as OIP-11 there was only 4000 ohmies at the time, and many taking time to understand and help protocol grow. Now we have 50% ohmies being here less than a month that came in with 10k APY promise. We should enable them to double their stack around the terms they came in with. (not one of them to be clear). Negative impact would be much bigger compared to then.

                                8. Why is vote tied/bundled? It should have option to say yes to a framework not tied to proposal but in general.

                                9. Please add disclaimer that discussion, and voting deadline might be extended if needed to reach consensus?

                                Why don’t we start with today’s RR, and start either supply or time based reduction step by step from here instead dropping it to 0.29 immediately? This way we could enable new ohmies to double their stack in less than 2 months. It would be easy fix, because protocol is very healthy right now, two months will not break it, it should be easily presented to potential partners how it will evolve, and new ohmies entering in mean time will have a clear picture what they could expect based on framework. This way we take care of our community in true (3,3) manner with minimal risk for protocol, and clear sky for the future development. Olympus is flying because of sinergy between you big brains and amazing community lets not forget about it.

                                On the other hand as one of those that never sold, I support the idea of Aludel like approach if it could be done.

                                Hope this helps.

                                • In Request for Comments - CEX Listing
                                • In OIP-9: Locking

                                  If we decide to go with locked staking, that would be a historical milestone imo. I believe in rewarding desired behaviour, and this milestone would im my opinion give opportunity to the team to thank those who sticked with the project through all the crazy shit that has happened since the launch.
                                  So, I'd propose to add few levels of one time multipliers for wallets that never unstaked.
                                  Few levels because someone who bought at 800 - 1200, and sticked with it till now, is definitely our ambassador and we want them to stay, and hopefuly bring in new ohmies.
                                  This will show new ohmies that team practices what it preaches, and if they behave in protocols best interest that they can expect same kind of treatment too. There is no better marketing than WoM.

                                  ofcourse this coming from my own greed

                                • In Introduce Warm Up for Staking

                                  Really great discussion, and strong arguments. What I'm about to say is mainly gut feeling because I obviously don't have any data to support my arguments. That's why I agree that the team should gather and present those. I'll be playing devil's advocate here and just focus on basic principles of proposal.

                                  First principle woud be that we are all here to make money. Now most of us believe in protocol, and long term profit it will bring. Minority are trading whales utilizing protocol rebase mechanism and market structure for fast profit.

                                  From protocol perspective problems are USTS and Hades on staking. USTS is mainly tied to whales scalping, and Hades is feature that team believes is esential for protocols longterm success.

                                  Big question for the team is: Are we destroying protocol basis i.e. Simplicity, for the sake of its feature i.e. Hades? Are we not seeing the forrest because of the tree?
                                  Such things happen in each tech led project, it's natural and in good faith, but can have severe consequences down the road. Can you share how many holders is using Hades?

                                  My gut feeling is that both USTS and Hades are primarily used by those same scalping whales, because both work in their best interest. On the other side, majority of us small position protocol believers just slurps and stakes, not caring about extra layer of anonimity. To suceed Protocol needs a couple of good faith whales and army of small investors. That's why I would argue that whatever team does it should focus heavily on deply understanding small investors and how to make them feel safe (in crypto terms), welcome, and wagmi.

                                  Taking above into consideration, I feel that creating amazing locked staking offer will minimize USTS through lowering unlocked APY.

                                  That leaves us with single question: Is Hades on staking critical for protocol success?