Ya this is a good point. I think one of the important things to keep in mind is that our original OHM AMO that bought OHM with FRAX was entirely accounted for in our CR. For example, when we minted 100k FRAX through the AMO strategy, there was a 100k recollateralize that was opened and funded for by minted FXS to attain $100k in collateral. So it is important that everyone keeps this in mind and corrects the record if there’s other people in the community or Twitter that thinks FRAX just “mints unbacked stablecoins” to do similar things. It is fundamentally different than anything Mochi did both in terms of it being entirely onchain, through contracts and also the protocol keeping its liabilities+collateral in check to the displayed CR.
whenever someone buys a bond on ohm
90% of new ohm goes to the staking contract
10% of the new ohm goes to the dao treasury to spend as the dao see fits
100% of the asset paid goes into the treasury to back the ohms
Because ohm has been widely successful our Dao funds is significant at this point, OHM IS NEVER MINTED out of thing air. value has to be added to the treasury backing ohm in order to mint new ohm for the dao
I’m sorry, OHM is not minted out of thin air, but still I see that when someone bonds for OHM, the corresponding amount of OHM is staked, but also the same amount goes to the DAO, e.g. if someone bonds $100 in value they receive $100 in OHM and the DAO receives $100 in OHM (see this tx for example Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Etherscan).
Obviously i find 10% (which i do not see) far more decent than 100%, but regardless of the amount, we first have to agree that it is a reasonable amount (not too highly mainly) for revenue and and does not pose a threat to the users.
Since from what i see in the transactions the DAO currently has 100% revenue when selling bonds, that seems to be a very dangerous amunt, even considering this is crypto, even if it was 10% i’d be doubtful, and i personally don’t see that as a sound source of income.
sorry no the tx doesnt show that, i dont blame you for being confused as its quite a complicated system ohm has
when someone bonds it the Lp goes to the treasury
Ohm is minted against it at whatever price the person paid (let say they put in 10k of lp and got 5% discount they brought 10.5k worth of ohm)
since 1 ohm requires only 1 dollar to mint,and the protocol took in 10k for simplicity sake then the rest of the money it doesnt need to use to mint to pay the bonder is used to mint ohm
90% goes to the staking contract and 10% goes to the dao
So u have 2 ohm minting one for the bonder at market value, one for the staking/dao
kk, so lets say i buy a bond with OHM at $1000 and 5% discount, so i pay $950. This means that I would receive 1 OHM, and since i provided an excess of $949 for backing, then 949 additional OHMs are minted, 94.9 go to the DAO and 854.1 to the staking contract.
Could you point me to where this is done and help to clarify me what is happening in the transaction i sent and why the DAO address has accumulated $900M of OHM?
Support this proposal as long as the OHM is staked. Is there a better way to price instead of 30 day TWAP?
The 30 days twap is a standard which Olympus uses for all it’s DAO swaps - how Olympus is minted is very clear to anyone who cares to read the reams of documentation about it. We need to align our community and the Olympus community with them having skin in the game through a sizable position in FXS. Toke did a big swap with OHM and are raking in the OHM staking rewards right now. The primary value of this is moving us further away from USDC backing and aligning our communities - Olympus has a massive community which we can use to bolster our own. Olympus is a good actor and exactly the type of protocol we should share alignment with and there are innumerable ways we can continue to collaborate - I have quite a few to propose if this vote passes. Appreciate that there are a few voices in here that are against OHM because they see it as a risk - unfortunately the only answer to this is that it is indeed a risk, but one well worth taking. This has kicked around for 10 days already and should go to a vote asap. If people are unhappy they can vote against it. I’ll be voting for it
1 Like