devoltaire

The DAO just went through a re-org and a set of OKRs were agreed upon.

This RFC highlights the execution obstacles while the proposed solutions reflect a practical approach given time constraints to meet the OKRs. DKD's background provided invaluable insights on how these came about.

My takeaway is that the need to fix is urgent and I would vote yes.

Reasons:

1. A one year tenure is short and there is a safeguard with an evaluation in 6 months' time
2. There is clear responsibility and accountability tied to each member that is aligned to the agreed OKRs
3. All the proposed members have proven to be able to execute

Balancing and incorporating the forum's feedback thus far, I propose to incorporate the following when moving to OIP:

Add two more Council members (as a tactical approach):

• Marketing & Communication - raised by many, common theme as the weakest link thus far
• Community Representative - for rank and file voice to be heard and be counted (h/t @davoice321)

Parallelly, start working on a framework for the Council members. Lots of good points have already been raised. This will take time and should not be a blocker for this proposal to go ahead to address the immediate pains/ obstacles.

We should be vigilant in:

1. how to avoid/ minimize the process from becoming a popularity contest, jockeying for power...
2. balance between democracy vs. ensuring the right people are place in the right role
3. how that democracy is achieved - community-wide vote, by number of token holders, trust in a select group of people to decide

I know the DAO has enough talent and Ohmies who care enough to ensure these and to make it happen. Happy Anniversary!

ChrisS There will be no 100% foolproof way to guarantee trust. People can change over time - they may be 100% committed today but may act in bad faith down the road.

What helps me to determine whether to my fellow Ohmies? It is the daily interaction with them in the stand-ups and work server, how they behave and communicate and through their actions. E.g. @Mark11 voluntary disclosed an ENS gift he received as a token of appreciation from a partner and set-up a process and framework for us to declare. @tex is always asking how this and that is good for Olympus and what utility it brings, consistently over time.

Many of the Council members or proposed Council members are likely high profile contributors in the DAO and I am sure they will need to consistently demonstrate that they have the best interests for Olympus. Otherwise I do not think their names will be put up.

forgottenname Same here. I wrote far OTM covered calls and its just picking pennies. I feel this proposal is not to be evaluated through the optics of yield but rather the benefits that will accrue as a result of the collaboration initiated through the DAO investment. From what I gather from the comments:

1. potential opportunities and partnerships for Olympus with Dopex's new launches (seems like many upcoming)
2. close collaboration with Dopex team provides added insights into our own risk management strategies

These intangible benefits could offset even a zero P&L from the SSOV-ETH. Also the proposed ETH deployment is not a binary - staking will still happen, so this is just employing ETH on multiple fronts.

Balotelli45 and tex also raised very good points that should be addressed and to add, since this is a pilot deposit, at which point/ under what criteria, do we decide that this is not a suitable product to deploy our treasury assets into?

Asfi and I fully agree with all your points. They are all factually correct. My takeaway is this is up-only from an overall point of view

Asfi I think the return is secondary while “partner… for the multiple launches to come” is primary

devoltaire ok you have answered above

Very bullish on Dopex and its team, so this is good business. The $333k ETH deposit for farming goes into where:

a. SSOV-ETH

b. One of their four farms

c. Or it’s just lending to Dopex

Big fan of the Balancer LBP and White Whale held the first ever LBP token launch on Terra today. Its a great case of expanding OHM usage. Totally supportive!

As for the multisig, will the DAO be part of it? The recent AnubisDAO rug on Copper came to mind. If I remembered correctly, there was a multisig in place for the liquidity pool but at the very last minute during launch, due to some technical issues, the control of the liquidity pool was given to a single person and the rest was history. Would like to know in cases where Olympus is providing funding, we have mechanisms to prevent this?

Montbegon Got the reply from InsurAce team

<quote> It’s no cause for concern. Just standard for new listings and relatively young projects. <unquote>

Yella Formal vote on Snapshot is now live

https://snapshot.org/#/olympusdao.eth/proposal/0x1793d2eef3287e6a2638f3daf5e3da8fd283cfd4c105545c774ee9feaf32825a

puthinakattu Hi, wrt to the questions:

Q1. Yes these are all on an individual basis, not on a pool together basis.

Q2. Yes that is correct.

Q3. sOHM represent staked OHM on the Ethereum network and if the tokens vanished/ got lost/ drained off the network due to a smart contract hack, this will be covered. As for the sOHM, on the web3 wallet, I think this is can be restored if it is a matter of one changing one's wallet and the sOHM isn't added. But if the sOHM is lost/ drained off due to one's carelessness that result in phishing, malware or etc.. such incidents are not covered. wsOHM are not on Ethereum so this is not covered.

Mark11 Hi Mark11, this is where the DAO participates in their liquidity mining program by contributing to any of the current 6 pools available with the following estimated APY:

• ETH / 11.59%
• WETH / 10.48%
• DAI / 33.12%
• USDC / 18.93%
• USDT / 42.71%
• INSUR / 43.36%

The current coverage capacity of the Olympus pool is $10m (unused). If the DAO stakes$ 2m, InsurAce can increase the coverage pool size by an additional (2x4) = $8m, bringing the total coverage pool size to$ 18m. This is something we managed to negotiate with InsurAce on how to increase the coverage pool size. We will only need to consider this if the current $10m pool is snapped up and the community requests for more coverage. When that happens, I am sure this will be brought forth to the DAO to discuss the amount to stake and then ask the community to vote.

Montbegon Yes. We are already in contact with Unslashed and provided them the info they require for underwriting. Currently awaiting their reply. Nexus and Bridge Mutual are on our cards too.

Mugen You can make payment via BSC, Avalanche or Polygon. Takes care of gas fees

For now this only applicable to sOHM as this is a coverage for smart contract vulnerability risk on Ethereum.

OHM in one's web3 wallet is not covered.

wsOHM on Avalanche is not covered as these are not staked per se although the value reflects the staked amount since day 1.

Currently InsurAce only provides 4 types of coverage namely (i) Smart contract vulnerability, (ii) Stablecoin de-peg risk, (iii) Custodian risk and (iv) IDO event risk.

While the coverage is not token specific, the type of risk coverage we are getting i.e. smart contract vulnerability, precludes the coverage of OHM and wsOHM.

Clearly a "Aye aye" vote. Just curious if the current OHM/ETH pool on Uniswap is also bootstrap by us? Don't think so since the liquidity is so low vis-a-vis Sushi. Any thoughts of pumping more liquidity into the Uniswap pool since both are "official" places to get OHM as listed on the app?

irc Liquity scored well in this regard

Hi what will be the frequency of Liquity risk re-assessment once we go-live with this since things are ever evolving at a fast rate? Is there a treasury portfolio re-balancing since some of the assets will outperform the others?