lpp

  • Feb 16, 2022
  • Joined Jun 19, 2021
  • In OIP-76: Create Inverse Bond Policy Lever

    Not really for or against this (want to hear more discussion) but have a few Q:

    1. Is there any idea what order assets would be used for this? If we use our most volatile assets, then we will by default be 'selling the bottom' assuming markets stay correlated. Alternatively if we use stables, RFV decreases. How is the policy team envisioning this in terms of 'order of payout'?

    2. Exactly how is "backing" being calculated here, I.E. what price does OHM need to fall below for this lever to be used? Also, is OHM-DAI LP being included in this backing? Not sure if it is, but if we start selling all 'backing' or treasury assets except OHM-DAI LP we run into a risk where an increasing portion of OHM backing is OHM-DAI LP which would be bad for obvious reasons.

    3. What happens to the OHM which the treasury buys? (Nvm this one reread the proposal understand now)

    All in all I think it's a good idea but one we should be very careful about as one wrong step here could create a reflexive loop we want to avoid.

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

        I think it's important CEXs work on their UI implementation of gOHM so that users can actually see their OHM rebasing every 8 hours

        Seeing your balance increase daily is a great feeling and one of the things that make Olympus unique. CEX users should be able to enjoy this as well

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

          Wintermute worked with Gala Games. $GALA. Google what happened to them. Cause and effect is more complex of course but a yes from me.

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

            I've worked and currently work with several market makers in crypto. They are totally needed and we should get one now before a CEX listing - in fact, most CEX's will require we have one before a listing anyway. So, this puts us ahead of the curve.

            • lpp likes this.
          • In Market Making Proposal from GSR

            Don_G_Lover yeah to extend on this. With regard to 'I don't want OHM on CEXs' or 'I don't want CEXs to have governance power' at the end of the day it is permissionless and there is nothing we can do. I do agree strongly with the governance power piece, but listing is in my opinion is inevitable whether we like it or not. What we can do, however, is keep things on our own terms. Having a market maker that is, at a bare minimum, aligned enough to write a forum proposal and do an AMA with the community (rare/unheard of), is valuable and a good step.

            Also, a solution to the governance power issue is for CEXs to hold and trade sOHM. This way they can offer staking natively without holding tokens that wield governance power.

              • In Market Making Proposal from GSR

                Wartull quick question - could you please explain in more detail what exactly made the “the best fit” compared to others and in their own right?