h0botnic4

  • Sep 26, 2022
  • Joined May 31, 2021
  • 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

  • GM sers. My thoughts below.

    1. I think the first question that needs to be addressed relates to the underlying assumption that bonding-as-a-service is not part of Olympus’ core mission. Does bonding-as-a-service contribute or detract from Olympus’ mission to build a defi reserve currency? I don’t think there is a consensus on this important point, so a more in-depth discussion is warranted imo.

    Bonding-as-a-service introduces a recurring revenue stream and is a mechanism for inflow of tokens across the DeFi ecosystem into Olympus treasury (as written in the Medium article introducing Olympus Pro: ‘the transfer into our treasury represents our skin in the game’). It’s also one of the ways in which Olympus can accumulate governance power in and build relationships with strategically important protocols. Having skin in the game across DeFi and building strategic relationships/partnerships through bonding-as-a-service directly contributes to Olympus’ goal of embedding itself in DeFi and the broader ecosystem.  Why would we give this away and how is this not supporting OHM’s mission to become a reserve currency for decentralised economy?

    High cash burn in temporarily unfavourable market conditions is not a good answer imo.  OP not being profitable during a period of market contraction is to be expected – shutting it down for this reason is not aligned with long-term strategic thinking.  Given the size of our treasury, $1m yearly burn rate for bonding-as-a-service dev really doesn’t strike me as outsized. Olympus as a protocol can afford to and really should take a much longer-term stance here.

    2. Second, if people come to the consensus that bonding-as-a-service is not positively contributing to Olympus’s reserve currency mission, then terms and conditions as well as the structure of the deal require further clarification. I have several questions but will start with the most pressing ones below.

    3.  Bond Protocol to be spun off as an ‘incorporated for-profit entity with shareholders’. Why not as a DAO? This strikes me as going against the ethos of Olympus and what’s being built here. Even if the community votes for this, a private for-profit company building bonding-as-a-service protocol will have way less legitimacy in this space than keeping it as part of Olympus (where the idea originated).

    4. Olympus to get 60% of equity in this new entity. Why only 60%? Presumably Olympus/Ohmies were the sole entity funding permissionless bonding development so far. Who gets the other 40%, and why? Are new investors buying in that would get the remaining 40%? At what valuation and terms?

  • Jawesome is OlympusDAO a formalised legal entity in relevant jurisdictions? How can a contract like this be even made and enforced with a DAO?

    • You have my support ser, a great idea.

    • we like the Proteus

      was Polygon intentionally omitted from the list of eligible chains?