notSHAFT

  • 30 Mar
  • Joined May 26, 2023
  • Full support. Utilizing excess reserves to decrease the friction of accessing OHM is a no-brainer. If passed this will greatly benefit ecosystem users and builders.

  • Sounds like another great utility option for Ohmies. Full support here

  • Appreciate your dedication to crafting this well-balanced solution that sets Olympus on the road to success. I believe the community will be pleased with the proposed terms. Let's ride!

  • Great proposal. Full support

  • dr00 Think of it 3.57M inverse bond. If passed this proposal should work to remove 352K+ OHM from circulation and increase liquid backing by ~2%.

  • Shpadoinkal We can never get rid of gOHM. Users will always be able to unwrap for the underlying OHM; no liquidity is needed.

    The proposed design builds a simple and autonomous Olympus protocol. We shouldn't sacrifice that so that people can have their cake and eat it too. With that said there is no reason for gOHM to be a collateral option for Cooler.

  • Excellent write-up. If this passes, those deposited in Cooler will not have voting rights. should we then launch Cooler with OHM since voting is the only reason gOHM as collateral was needed? gOHM has historically been a major source of confusion for many and making it obsolete would work to simplify the protocol for new entrants and make routing easier for whatever is built on top of Cooler.

    • rfveth Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your desired accounting practice is already a reality today. OHM is only added to the circulating supply when allocations go out.

    • Following the approval of this proposal, the Olympus development team has determined that the proposed timeline is unfeasible. Stay watchful on Discord and Twitter for the forthcoming announcement of a more practical timeline. The team will make every effort to implement the items outlined in the proposal to the best of their abilities. Additionally, they will continuously assess the impact these changes may have on the remaining mechanisms of the protocol, aiming to execute the implementation with minimal risk

    • nicnombre Thanks for the clarification. I do believe something like cooler loans is needed to create a rate arb and bring down the cost to collateralized OHM, but by going as far south as 0.5% we will nonetheless release animal spirits and undercut ourselves as a cost. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. An interest rate of 3.3% seems more appropriate IMO.

      It would be beneficial for you to talk with the team/community so we can be aligned on more conservative subscription terms before this is moved to an OIP. As things stand it is a bit of an overreach. My suggestion would be for you to bring 3 subscription terms to Discord and we can discuss and vote on what makes the most sense.

      • z_33 I agree for the most part but my point is that there are other reasons to hold OHM outside of yield farming and we should be mindful of them. The existence of a BLV doesn't change anything for someone that is holding OHM because it is stable and predictable.

      • z_33 I do not agree that BLV vaults are discouraging users from holding OHM especially since almost every OHM/stable LP position outperforms a BLV. Your example assumes that the user initially chose to hold OHM over LUSD solely because BLVs did not exist.

        • z_33 replied to this.
        • Mark11 The cost to borrow the world's reserve currency is ~ 5% and OHM as the reserve currency of defi is still only a goal. An interest rate of 0.5% exposes the protocol to too much leverage. We all remember what happened last time cheap liquidity was granted to users who do not fully understand leverage.

          I'd argue that adoption is more important than cheap liquidity for OHM to be successful and we do not help ourselves by undercutting other protocols and taking away the profitability of an OHM integration.