jushere2swang

  • Feb 11, 2022
  • Joined Nov 29, 2021
  • In OIP-58: Consider Hiring a Market Maker based on recent proposal

    I'm cool with this but I have a few caveats:

    1- We wouldn't be "hiring" a MM in my view. There's money to be made by associating with Olympus when it launches on a CEX. Most MM's will find plenty of incentive there without us adding payment. The GSR loan was already generous enough. I would instead spend the resources on legal or, if at all possible, smart contracts to govern the entire operation. Whatever terms we decide on compliance will be paramount.

    2- As I mentioned in the previous GSR thread when discussing this: CEXs should have no say in our governance, at all. Zero. This needs to be written in stone, and heavily enforced. The gOHM pool they would be provided is not for voting but for the provision of a service to their clients, for which they will collect fees. In short, gOHM should be a product they sell and not a tool they wield. We should include using the gOHM for voting purposes as grounds for termination of the agreement, with penalties, a collateral or some other form (or forms) of guarantee. Governance is not yet on-chain, but it will be. We can't afford transgressions on this once it is, it could completely destroy OHM.

  • In OIP-58: Consider Hiring a Market Maker based on recent proposal

    I guess I don't understand why Olympus needs to pay (either through options or interest free loans) market maker(s). As stated by Zeus, "listing is in my opinion is inevitable whether we like it or not."

    Market makers can make money off of ohm tokens, regardless of whether the community "hires" one (as seen in the inevitability of listing). It would be unwise to just accept the first two proposals put in front of the community. Maybe we do want to incentivize market making faster than would happen naturally, but shouldn't we be conducting a formal bidding process? Is a zero percent interest loan the best we can get, or will market makers, knowing they will be making money of spreads, be willing to pay interest rather than (in the case of GSR) getting a >1 million USD loan for free?

    Remember you aren't voting on whether or not to hire a market maker, you are voting on whether or not to accept the proposals from literally the first two market maker offers. Wartull's comment on the GSR proposal says they have been in talks with many market makers. I'd like to know if there was there a lot of negotiation done to get to GSR's proposal and what other market makers were saying in these talks, at least for some context if we are flat out refusing to have more formal bidding.

    Where is the time sensitivity that is forcing one's hand? I get (especially in Wintermute's proposal) that the amount being loaned isn't a huge fraction of the treasury, but this should be done right.

    • In Market Making Proposal from GSR

      Slept on this for a few days and really thought it thru.

      This isn't aligned at all. I legitimately would feel pretty bad selling OHM on a CEX where the person buying it is inevitably getting diluted. Seems short term greed at cost of long term growth. One day we may be on CEX's (I imagine we will) but let's do it on our terms where the deal will be 3,3 and we're more mature as a protocol/DAO. This is a Huge win/Neutral for GSR, and for us it's a kinda small win if everything breaks right for us / huge loss for Olympus the community. Not 3,3 from us at all.. can the community not see this?

      Strategically if the policy team can't really understand this, this is where I have to rethink my own stance. I'm one of the top OHM holders by count, probably one of the biggest by far given I did not participate in seed or discord invite & have only ever bought on the open market many times (I dont want to dox further but that's just how much I believe in this proj) but I see this decision (if it passes) as the first point where the DAO has now been hijacked by special interest groups. Even Maven11 saying they support it. Of COURSE they do, all these VCs pat each other on the back and it's a tit for tat long term strategy as they will be working together on future deals/protocols outside the scope of OlympusDAO.. do you not notice no outside groups ever push back against each other? That is why. In the end all this is is outsourcing liquidity to a party that does NOT have our interests aligned where the majority of the value captured will be by them.. all because of.. why again? If we can't figure this out and call a spade a spade I can't be the only one reevaluating my own conviction in this DAO, it feels like there are not enough people with experience outside of crypto where this is just how the world works and you must nail the incentives properly and this is NOT it.

      • In Market Making Proposal from GSR

        Ulysses31 Agree and to expand on point #2 - we understand that for MM to provide book depth, leverage is needed. Leverage could be 5x or 10x the capital brought in by MM. I work in a bank that worked with MMs to set up crypto trading. The leverage given is around 5x. GSR really needs to explain why they are not pledging capital/ collateral for the borrowing/ leverage from the dao when they are doing so with the banks. Are ohmies taken for a ride because you think we don't drive as hard a bargain as tradfi big boys? Mind you, tradfi big boys also have lots of spare cash sitting around but the last thing they do is to give it out for free.

        • In Market Making Proposal from GSR

          Zap

          Relying on niche governments that allow for some kind of DAO representation is a time waster. Governments change laws daily and crypto was designed to not follow their rules, but rather the rules of math and cryptography. There is not inevitability about government representation, Ethereum alone contains all the tools to conduct this agreement using smart contracts + multisigs/oracles.

          gsr_nyc

          It is appreciated that you would like to offer your services to decrease the bid-ask spread. But the meat and potatoes of this conversation is that you would like 25k OHM to do so, profiting off of the fees from trading. If the DAO were simply to wait for other CEX's to list we could keep 25k OHM in our treasury while also getting listed on a CEX…

          Iceman

          Agree, OHM benefits from a CEX listing. I think focusing on some kind of exchange for the OHM liquidity is of most peoples concern, on top of the scariness of doing business with a centralized MM as a DAO. Being that Olympus is a DAO, lots of concerns as to who and how deals are conducted with treasury assets matters here.

          alexk1d

          A solution to risk of the seizure of the lent OHM would be using a smart contract to conduct the deal between Olympus DAO and GSR. We could also clearly codify the terms in to which the OHM is to be returned and what interest rate they are borrowing it at. Through a combination of smart contracts + multisigs/oracles + DAO voting we can easily come up with a solution that best meets both OlympusDAO and GSR.

          jdarryl

          I think OHM definitely benefits from being listed on a CEX. Less experienced crypto users having easy access to (3, 3) is a good thing. But it is very necessary that the CEX's listing OHM acquire it fairly. Giving 25k OHM to GSR when they admit OHM will be listed eventually makes no sense.

          halloumi

          The only benefit to the DAO is immediate exposure to CEX users now rather then when CEX's list naturally.

          bone

          Ask any ohmer if they think 25k OHM is a big or small amount of OHM…

          h0botnic4

          There are legal/government jurisdictions in which we can get some form of enforcement, but they are few and far between and laws change daily.

          Cc2

          Smart contracts allow for clear terms to be laid out between Olympus DAO and GSR such that the entire OHM community can read them. The enforcement that would prevent them from screwing us could be written into the contract and enforced via DAO + multisigs/oracles.

          Maven11

          I think you are not taking enough consideration into the fact that GSR will be receiving the trading fees as there is no protocol owned LP involved. There is assymetry in what we would be giving GSR for what they stand to offer. They even mention that OHM will eventually be listed on a CEX eventually. Why give them the 25k OHM if being listed is only a matter of time?

          Ulysses31

          Very good points fren.

          Wartull

          Why do a deal now if CEX listing is only a matter of time? You refuse to acknowledge the real risks in GSR not following through 100% on their end of the deal. WE HAVE NO WAY TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY DECIDE TO NOT FOLLOW THE DEAL! Also the extra liquidity would be a liability not an asset because we are giving GSR the trading fees and the 25k OHM…

          bone

          This proposal is not by any definition a win win. GSR receives trading fees and we give them 25k OHM. We get listed on a CEX earlier than we would have and normie exposure which would have come eventually.

          CryptoGang

          Agree with this fully. Proteus just launched on Avalanche. Not even live on Matic, Fantom, Solana, etc. Why not bide our time…

          chairmanmao

          There is no interest rate. Its free 🤡

                                        • In Market Making Proposal from GSR
                                        • In Market Making Proposal from GSR

                                          Just want to add to the above that over the past few months we have talked with many market makers and that GSR was by far the best fit. I think this proposal makes a lot of sense for the further growth of Olympus and actually ties in well with the current Proteus strategy for brining in a ton of fresh liquidity for Olympus.