biscuit

  • Jul 9, 2022
  • Joined Aug 13, 2021
  • Zeus sure - so far all our bonds have been 0% coupon rate - you get the discount you agreed upon at purchase upon term expiration plus auto staking rewards in the interim (but I don’t THINK those are analogous to coupon payments) If we shift to a model with longer dated bonds, one way to dampen interest rate risk is to purchase a bond that pays out some “cash flow”(OHM) along the way. Sorry if I missed any details explaining such a mechanism in the paper.

    • Zeus replied to this.
    • Is there any intention or possibility of adding a coupon rate to the internal bonds down the line if we move in this direction?

      • Zeus replied to this.
      • Churchee agree with you and @ptp1600 . Long dated bonds in theory become the optimal play for those with a long-term outlook, but then you are taking on interest risks, which current staking does not have due to liquidity. I guess it shifts the types of participants a bit towards more sophisticated and full time traders rather than just casual retail. That should bring in more and bigger players, leading to higher volume, deeper liquidity, and more products around the ecosystem…. All that is to say I think I am beginning to see the vision.

        Dopex or Jones DAO then becomes more vital for those retail players that want to set it and forget it with a high conviction play on the long-term success of Olympus.

      • Is it correct to say this whole new mechanism in general makes staking less attractive (as it is now the "baseline" rate instead of the dominant strategy)? I think it also means there is an increase in dilution experienced by stakers. Should there be concern that this leads to more short-term activities and incentivizes higher risk taking (e.g. leverage), or is that an overreaction?

        • abipup I think the type of inverse bonds that are authorized need to be agreed upon at the outset. I don't think we want to be selling just any treasury asset. Probably just the stables for this

          1. Should there be some interest in the repayment option of returning the full 25,000 OHM at the end of 12 months?
          2. I also don't understand why a centralized exchange listing would increase DEX volume. Can someone hash out that logic? Is it just the increased visibility of the token driving that?
          3. Will there be any additional fees that the DAO needs to incur to get listed on any particular exchange associated with GSR?
          4. Is there a list of supported exchanges that GSR will be providing liquidity on?
          • I echo the same concerns as Proof of Steve on this

          • puthinakattu What about creating specialty bonds with a % going to such an initiative? That way, the purchaser is proactively making the choice. this would also drive demand for bonds. more win-win and aligned incentives.

          • This is so far removed from the core purview of the protocol that I have to vote against it. Charitable contributions are personal decisions and IMO shouldn't be decided though a consensus mechanism like DAO voting. if someone wants to donate, they should do so directly to ensure it is fully aligned with their values.

          • So in VC talk, max $250k check sizes. This means we won't be "leading the round" generally, but instead most likely be co-investors.

            I firmly believe the value-add and competencies of Olympus will still command fair compensation, but one thing to note is the best terms usually go to the biggest checks.

            I wouldn't be surprised to see an appetite for larger check sizes in the near future. Deal flow will likely be strong given the increasing reputation of the DAO and protocol.