Shreddy
- Oct 12, 2023
- Joined Oct 29, 2021
- Edited
Shreddy "Plus, thanks to new Treasury Management initiatives our Klima is staked which means we will make those funds back in a matter of epochs." Our Klima has always been staked as it has vested to us.
Archimedes As a large tokenholder it is in our interest to participate in this initiative as a market signal and to demonstrate its viability.
I assume there are large amount of ppl in the community who are skeptical of global warming models - as is rational given they have consistently overstated the impact of C02 emissions on the environment. On the other hand, a large amount of the Olympus community and woke capital (Blackrock etc) is emotionally and financially invested in reducing CO2 emissions.
TLDR: Supporting the 3,333 option is good for your OHM bags - regardless of your opinions on the global warming issue.
- 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
Ser can we has following and add it to the proposal? I understand these may change slightly based on market conditions, but should give us a good indication. For backing would be looking at the backing price with respect to what is shown on the dashboard (realising dashboard number is not true backing, we still need to use that as its what people see).
1. Change in RFV post mint
2. Change in Backing post mint (both backing price as shown in dashboard and actual)
3. Change in total supply post mintI ask for above because this will affect reward rates, and may affect APY soon after the mint. I dont think the change is clear enough for most users as currently written. #1 and #3 are already answered, though should be in the proposal too.
It would also be nice if policy team can provide their insights.
- Would minting a supply this high have any affect on reward rates. Since bonding effectively is offset by rewards, current holder dilution is a concern. Are we planning to increase the rewards while this offer is being considered? Are we considering a guarantee rewards will not be dropped lower post mint for x amount of time?- Instead of a $ price, can we change the offer to % discount to market price (like most of our bonds work). What is stopping anyone to drive OHM price down and driving SPA up during the offer? Any contingencies in place for this? While the price of SPA going up doesnt matter, OHM going down does. In this case only OHM RFV should be considered for any offers.
