Proposal: Olympus Pro

I disagree but I also don’t know all the things. This is a bigger topic and this isn’t the right place so I’m going to defer. I have a different understanding of what season spec and snapshot are for but I might be misaligned on those ideas.

Where’s the 5M a month going to come from?
This doesn’t appear too thought out

From the Main treasury

It comes out of the treasury as bonds and LP tokens go back into the treasury. It’ll increase both our token liquidity and revenue.

I side with the people who have concerns with this proposal. I think Olympus has done great things with OHM using these schemes to build a “reserve currency” like status. However, I don’t believe it works for Dao’s building a community.

Using Olympus Pro equates to a DAO fundraising to buy their own LP shares, but I believe in an inefficient way and not long term positive

  • the dao needs to sell their tokens at a discount (via bonds)
  • it locks tokens for a very short period of time (5 days?) and then they can be sold by the farmer immediately
  • these free floating tokens are likely not going to be in the hands of people wanting to be community members or long term investors
  • the dao is paying a steep 3.3% fee for something not that novel

having a dao own it’s own liquidity isn’t difficult to do. it can just raise funds in a more efficient way and get ETH or stables and then pool it with their own token (and lock in treasury)

even raising funds from a VC to do this is better. they will at least lock the tokens for a year or longer and be a strategic partner

I know the Bankless DAO community has a strong partnership with UMA so I don’t feel too bad pitching some ideas :grinning:

I had actually pitched Olympus to use success tokens instead of bonds. Tokens are locked for a long period of time and sold at NO DISCOUNT upfront (only a bonus if token rallies or some KPI is hit) - the payout can be made more lucrative to make it more attractive than a bond

Fundraising this way will ensure you are getting long term holders and not people doing a 5 day flip

Also UMA community is not charging anybody to deploy success tokens - no 3.3% fee. And we are happy to help explore other ideas that make long term sense for the bankless community

In any case I think there needs to be a better understanding of the economics behind this proposal and alternatives need to be explored. The community can get to the end result of owning its liquidity in more efficient ways. At the end of the day it’s just fundraising to get the ETH / stables that you need to pool. UMA community would be happy to help find the right long term solution.


I agree with this. I’ve been struggling to put my finger on what’s not sitting well with me on this proposal.

I like the way you articulated your points and agree. It looks like an endless hole of revenue shortfalls we will need to mitigate else where - putting more strain on our teams.

I think there are more effective and efficient options out there to help us build our community, long standing relationships aside

If you listen to the recent podcast with zeus, this exact issue was addressed. Yes, there’s a higher upfront cost, but over time as the liquidity will be DAO owned, the costs end up much lower than LP rewards.

The problem right now is, there’s soooooo much going on in bDAO that it really is difficult to keep track of processes and voting and everything that is going on.

TBH, the discord is out of control and there are WAY too many voting proposals active.

I’ve wanted to participate more, but it’s overwhelming and discourages participation, especially when the DAO isn’t your main activities.

So I voted yes on this because I like what Olympus has been doing.

I understand your position on the gov process, but going into vote on this proposal I had no idea that a breach had even occurred.

Guys, we need a way to tame down the information and activity overload that this DAO has expanded into.

The DAO being so active with participation is great, but it’s become really prohibitive for anyone to come in and scalp a contribution opportunity.

Just my thoughts though.

Owning the liquidity isn’t the question. The DAO can do that without Olympus Pro. So there’s no need to pay the 3.3% or sell bonds at a discount. You just need to raise some funds for ETH. And it’s better to do this in a more thoughtful process where you find long term investors and community members.

I think that my concern over the 3.3% fee for Olympus Pro might have taken on different meaning than I intended. I just wanted to weigh it against creating our own system. OP will give us exposure to new investors with fairly deep pockets as we’d be listed in the same interface as the others and according to the latest Olympus DAO wide meeting there is an intention from OP to facilitate joint marketing among the participants, even if there is no current framework in place.

I believe $BANK is in dire need of liquidity and protocol owned liquidity is the best option I have found. It’s a public service that I think might become a baseline requirement for success for many projects in the future.

I don’t believe that Olympus is a ponzi even if it uses some dynamics that at times seem similar. It’s not a fully collateralized token atm and should be treated differently, but it’s also not an uncollateralized fiat promise backing other fiat promises.

It really bugs me that this forum post is not directly linked from the snapshot vote.


That does seem reasonable, it’d be really cool to be able to earn yield on the LP and then sell that LP token to the bond before the incentives dry up. Olympus style liquidity is a slow burn and takes time to ramp up. Having it going in advance of the end of the LP incentivization would likely allow people to exit the position back to BANK, for an added bonus BANK via the bond discount. Thus, BANK would likely not experience the volatility that often surrounds the termination of an incentivized LP model.

The fee aspect does give me pause. Is that of the initial tokens upfront? Or is it off of every bond sold? If so that means bankless would be taking a 10% haircut on it potentially, which is mighty steep. Still, I feel like there’s a good way to do the olympus model for liquidity. Although it could potentially tie up large quantities on the main chain and make it harder to generate liquidity on a L2? Perhaps sushi swap could work with that since they’re on multiple chains/layers?

edit: whoops its already gone to vote.


I would like to see the DAO take some effort and educate folks first so that folks can understand how protocol owned liquidity works

1 Like

Moving to archive. Please reply to reopen.

I am a bit late. It took me a while to read through Olympus docs and learn all about it. Thanks, @livethelifetv for working on this proposal.

1 Like