- Edited
I shifted to support now as well. I see no benefit in forcing a direction that goes against the will of the DAO members, and especially against the OP team in this case. If you guys think this is the best way forward, I trust your judgment.
However, I am still not entirely sold on the idea that Olympus should not be offering any fee/revenue-generating services (esp. core ecosystem infrastructure services!). Olympus (the DAO) is not a reserve currency but an entity that manages this currency. Analogous to a central bank, Olympus is an institution with a principle mandate to manage OHM as a reserve currency such that it will act as a store of value over time. It runs various operations to support that mission. To continue with the central bank analogy, central banks do offer infrastructure services in exchange for fees to other banks and governments to varying degrees (similar to Olympus offering these to DeFi protocols and DAOs?). Central banks aren’t businesses, however, and don’t pursue profits from these services as ends in themselves nor do they distribute them to shareholders like businesses do; rather, they direct them back to treasuries which are ultimately used to support their primary goal - stability of their currencies and economies.
I appreciate issues around the misperception of Olympus/OHM as well as how critical it is that the DAO does not dilute its focus on the core mission by branching out across too many initiatives and ventures. But there is a balance that can be struck here imo. Olympus is not a venture fund, nor a hedge fund. It’s also not a business. That doesn’t mean that it can’t invest or sell services for fees, as long as those activities can help Olympus reach its mission and do not detract from the team’s focus on the same. To stabilize and fortify the use case of OHM as a DeFi reserve currency, Olympus must grow its treasury - which is a means to an end but an absolutely essential one.
On the point of OP revenue, I agree that the volume so far has been incremental in the context of the whole treasury. However, we should also acknowledge that the service has been operating for a very short period. I would not underestimate BaaS’s potential to significantly grow the treasury (i.e. Olympus’ power to support OHM’s price stability) over time. Its instant success and the fact that it’s been profitable virtually from the get-go (up until the recent extremely unfavourable mkt conditions) has far out exceeded expectations imo for an early-stage venture that established an entirely new market.
We need to fine tune our messaging, but let’s not unnecessarily limit our means to getting to the desired end. We for sure equally need to be highly selective with respect to what economic activities we pursue in-house and which ones are better supported outside the DAO. Hopefully, the OP spin-off proves to be the success case of this balancing act. Time will tell. Until then, best of luck to Bond Protocol!
P.S. Petition to rename it to Bondage Protocol :3