Jem
- 9 days ago
- Joined Oct 7, 2021
Bit late to the party (poll has ended), but in favour of funding a maintenance crew to ensure the protocol continues to operate safely
A lot's been said, I'm going to try and keep it brief.
Disclaimer: I'm a DAO contributor (dev).I'll also add that none of this is personal. I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of what's going to enable the protocol to achieve its stated goal.
Motivations
- nicnombre has since shared the motivation that the treasury is too large and too risky, and that this is a way to reduce the size of the treasury
- He's also said that there's a lot of bloat, projects that add complexity on top of the existing protocol (RBS), and experiments that don't provide profit, and is in favour of cementing the protocol as-is, making the DAO obsolete and seeing what happens.
I mention these, because understanding the motivation and desired outcome is important in making an informed decision.
IMO:
- Agreed on the end goal of making the DAO obsolete, but I don't think this is the right time. Olympus as a protocol does not have what's needed to be a decentralized reserve currency.
- There are experiments (so much of what Olympus is doing, and DeFi in the wider sense, is new, and requires experimentation). Some will work, some won't, some will require tweaks to work. I would welcome more guidance and feedback on the kinds of projects/initiatives that the community thinks would drive the protocol towards the end goal.
- If there is dissatisfaction in the community about the projects being worked on, and/or their efficacy and relevance, then I think it's important to have discussions around that.
- I think there should be a roadmap (that gets updated based on learnings and community feedback) towards that end-goal.
Capping
- It was mentioned earlier (perhaps in Discord) that nicnombre wanted the full treasury to be converted to DAI and available for loans. He's since mentioned that he's open to capping (but has concerns). So this isn't all-or-nothing.
IMO:
- From a security perspective, it is unwise to give a smart contract access to any significant portion of the treasury. Especially one that has only had 1-2 audits (plenty of exploits of audited contracts) and has not been battle-tested. RBS has access to a limited subset of funds for this reason. We can be sure that a smart contract with access to a $200m+ treasury will get the attention of hackers.
- I don't think Cooler loans is a bad idea or implementation, but I think it should be capped to an amount that enables the DAO to test the impact. There should be goals/metrics set accordingly.
Implications
- Without capping, we risk the treasury being emptied (or very close to it), and crippling the ability to continue development of the protocol. (shadow and unbanksy communicated this more effectively.)
Additionally, I think many OHMies are looking at this as a way to achieve price appreciation without constraining supply further. This is one approach, but I don't think it is the only approach. If OHMies want price appreciation and treasury growth to support the implementation of a decentralized reserve currency (which I believe we're all motivated by), then we should instead of focusing on (as has been mentioned earlier):
- Bring OHM above liquid backing, e.g. ongoing discussions on reducing POL to increase volatility and trigger RBS
- Making OHM the liquidity rails of DeFi (cross-chain and BLV)
- Increasing the utility of OHM, e.g. through lending/borrowing (of which cooler loans can be a component)
- (Not an exhaustive list, just ones I'm more informed about - please see shadow's forum post for the list of projects)
I feel that the unamended proposal (without a cap) is a net-negative for the protocol and the holders in the long-term.
seijaku Thanks for the feedback on this. We will be working on a refresh of the subgraphs and dashboard and time their release to coincide with the movement of assets. One of the priorities in recent months has been to shorten the development cycle for the subgraph, which we have achieved (indexing from 1st May 2022 used to take 2-3 weeks, and it now takes 2-3 days), which means we can push out improvements much quicker.
bubbidubb Bonus goals
I don't think this is the place to debate the DAO OKRs for 2022. These were proposed in March: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/1133-request-for-comment-implement-leadership-council
hOHMwardbound A few questions:
- Can you clarify if the bonus will be paid in USD(C) or gOHM? I assume gOHM.
- Is there any vesting to align contributors in the long-term?
- Regarding runway, it is perhaps a tangential discussion, but knowing by how much the council aims to grow the DAO treasury in order to extend the runway would be helpful. (To counter the obvious reaction that the DAO treasury will -> 0 in 2.1 years.)
- This isn't material to the poll, but having a monthly update from the council on progress and actions towards the achievement of OKRs would be fantastic. (I can help with this, too!)