@JaLa @balotelli45 Will the resulting yield go to the treasury or will it help grow the DAO funds? Imo that's important to know and might be useful to be spelled out in the proposal as DAO OHM becoming gOHM will naturally dilute stakers, if the yield is going into the treasury (and eventually the FEI as well if the position is closed), then this dilution becomes more directly accretive.
- Edited
It's been an absolute honor to work alongside such exceptional contributors and to participate in building out world class systems. Just to give you a tiny glimpse into the caliber of the team who have pulled this together (and this is missing the addition of a few new arrivals who have equally impressive background):
@Bigbabol - eternal utopist, 20y experience in FMCG & Media Industry, last 10y Multi-Country General Manager at Fortune 100 company
@de Voltaire - financial analyst, 16 years in Investment Banking
@Nach 211 - Former bespoke HF/SP @ major US institution, current Consulting & Project Manager
@Claude Monet - 10+ years in VC, deal structuring and due diligence
@wollemiPine - a decade in financial cooperatives, data analyst, general nerd
@json - chemical engineer by trade, experience with R&D and global project management at one the world's largest private CPG companies
@Stefano - Founder, VC and Governmental Ecosystem Builder - WAGMI Vibes deliverooor
@Glue - Team Builder, Operator, VC, ~10 years startup / enterprise engagement experience
@Solarpunk Durruti - built and sold tech companies, VC experience, been through YC
@JAY CRPTO Crpto - former management consultant & VC, founder and leader of a 10 yo startup
@B33bs Investment banker that moonlights in credit and private equity funds management
@Crypto Will Hunting Tech Investment lead for multi billion $ institution. Previously Early employee at large global Fintech, Banker
@Ohmie 33 (Ty) - Built and sold companies. Past experience in VC and building an incubator
@kleb Analyst, project manager and serial startup-er
@JurassicParks - Institutional HF Portfolio Manager
@Mark11 - Former senior lawyer at a number of organizations
@JaLa - 10 years in investment banking, distressed credit
@Shreddy - Marketing / A&R Director in the Music & Entertainment Industries potential future McDonalds employee of the month
@Dropkick Darren - ex pro-athlete, brand manager in the music industry
Very boolish
Directionally seems to be a no brainer, minimal marginal cost with ample benefits (i.e. treasury diversification/expansion, liquidity thus income raising). Magnitude-wise, want to ask (1) the rate at which we are earning TOKE and (2) how much incremental liquidity we are raising with this 900 OHM. Thank you! @JaLa
Other than their own unique smart contract risks, I don't think FRAX and DAI off much (if any) diversity in net asset exposure or performance. They're both primarily collateralised by ETH and USDC. If either one of the those collateral assets falters, then every unit of FRAX and DAI in the Treasury is exposed to that same risk, whether they've been paired together in an LP or not.
IMO, for this reason, I think the proposal creates only a small amount of additional risk to the Treasury, and we should support it.
bone I'm not certain that the 1:1 won't hold in the long run.
It's true that the alUSD redemptions via the transmuter depend on not everyone doing it at once, since the time to redemption depends on what % of the alUSD staked in the transmuter you have and what % of the transmuter's yield you can be redeemed with. However the alUSD3CRV pool is sufficiently liquid - particularly while rewards last - to ensure people exchange alUSD <> stables in the open market, instead of rushing to the transmuter. Alternatively people can repay their loans with alUSD or Dai, or liquidate a portion of their collateral. Only in a true bank rush, where everyone rushes to the transmuter, will it not maintain the peg, in my assessment.
I think this is a great proposal @JaLa and believe it would do good for both $OHM and $ALCX since both are vibrant communities of upstart protocols that both need broader ecosystem adoption of their tokens / stables.
Chrysus33 - I do not think this qualifies as a "rug pull"
JaLa actually made a great comment today, I wanted to transfer here:
It may be helpful to look at this from a risk perspective rather than rewards. Flip it around and ignore number go up and utility. The risk of holding OHM is very different today than it was in March. The protocol now needs to pay you less to hold it becuase the risk of going to $1 tmrw is now much smaller. The market now requires a lower rate of return.
All credit to @JaLa
What 