This idea has been brought up a few times. The matter of fact is that Omm protocol already takes a very thin margin (10%), so maximum discount you can get from borrowers’ perspectives is 10% max. (Ex: IUSDC borrow rates - 30% to 27%) Do you think this is something that may be interesting as users?
I do think the idea of utilizing the protocol fee to grow the usage of protocol makes more sense at this stage of the protocol than buy back or distributing fees.
Yea, I see your point.
I don’t expect that this alone will attract users, but it will surely add value. And combined with other traits, it might attract users.
I agree that growing the usage of the protocol is more important.
Yeah, I can see that fees at the moment are not a lot (according to my estimations roughly ~100.000 USD per month), so definitely the path forward should be on growing the usage.
Hopefully BTP presents opportunities so user of other chains can supply their coins and tokens on Omm.
Hey guys!
I’ve currently been using Geist Finance on FTM and Blizz Finance on AVAX, they are both forks of AAVE v2.
They both give 50% of platform revenue back to the investors that have locked their native token.
I really love that idea.
However as mentioned if it is a potential sec problem, then the use of platform revenue to buy and burn OMM is the way to go.
Or alternatively the revenue can buy OMM and keep it in the DAO fund for use later on, this still applies constant buy pressure and removes the OMM from the market.
Thoughts?
I like the idea of buy back to create some buy preassure for Omm. I think it will be important since if the Omm token is valued too low, then the incentives of using the Omm platform drops. I also agree with that the DAO fund should be used to develop the platform but I am struggling a bit too see exactly where to go there. First I think we need to solve more utility for the omm token for it not to go too low.
Agreed. OMM needs more utility. Personally turning it into a security is not an issue for me so any developments that would make OMM more attractive to hold would be attractive for many (non-US citizens clearly). OMM has been on a downwards spiral and there is nothing in the pipeline to suggest that will change anytime soon. May as well have a token that offers utility and profit to some than a token that tanks to pennies for everyone.
Agree. I had a look at Aave. Maybe we should suggest a vote for some of their incentives?
That will then also make it more attractive to use Omm once BTP opens up to more cross chain activity.
Be aware that in a couple of months a lot more tokens will be released as well.
Agreed. Lets get a proposal going for omm to buy back their tokens.
Lets get a work in progress proposal going
Over on our discord channel it’s seems, no one is in favour of a buyback and burn, or distribution of platform revenue.
So maybe we focus on bOMM (boosted OMM). Same as what Balanced is working on implementing.
What’s everyone’s thoughts on this?
Would be similar to this
Really because I’ve been hearing different. What were their reasonings on why they were against it?
Have a read mate.
Appreciate it mate. I’ll check it out.
Hi, I have a general questions to OMM team, as I didn’t figure out how to create a new topic I just join to this one here.
So, my question is why OMM token is melting down so quickly? What is the reason the OMM token lost its value each day and it looks like it’s going to 0 very soon? This is not good at all for all new investors who would like to invest in OMM, but when they see the price is following down so quickly it doesn’t look good. As far as I know, OMM is trading only on Balanced, the OMM staking is raising every day, so why OMM token is going down in price? I am worried as my investment so far is melting down every day.
I hope OMM team is working on this and looking to at least increase the options for OMM to be trading on more platforms or find some other solutions to improve the OMM price factor!?
Sorry not following here. Are you suggesting having staking benefit similar to that of Aave? Aave currently offers 6.2% staking rewards (in Aave) with governance power to vote (Migration and Staking - FAQ). Omm currently offers 64% staking rewards (in OMM) with governance power to vote.
Think this bOMM model can be interesting. BALN token economics enhancement: bBALN - WIP: BIP - Balanced Given Omm can reference Balanced’s implementation of bBALN, easiest implementations would be following similar logic:
Interest rate boost/discount would be tough as they are not directly related with OMM rewards. Overall, I like where this is going!
I think bOMM is the way to go.
Does it make sense to have boosted staking rewards also?
But maybe we can boost OMM tokens rewards for suppliers OR borrowers.
Ok well maybe a boost in OMM rewards for supply/borrow is the best then.
The investors locking up OMM for a boost, are likely to lock up any additional OMM earned.
Yeah, makes sense to give more for those who value it more. Let’s see if this route is technically feasible.
Given Karma’s recent proposal on CPS, it will be interesting if Omm tries to kickstart the process by using a portion of the protocol fee and use OMM from the DAO fund to provide its own LP. This direction means Omm owning its own liquidity instead of renting liquidity from 3rd party, which is considered “expensive” in the industry at the moment.
Currently, there is around $1.6M of OMM liquidity provided by LP providers and they are compensated with 60K OMM tokens daily (~$12K/day, ~$360K/month, ~$4.3M/yr). LP providers is a group that is likely to sell OMM tokens to make up for impermanent loss.
Right now there is around $400K in protocol fee (ICON Tracker) at the ICX price of $1.77. With OMM from the DAO fund, Omm protocol can create ~$800K in liquidity, which will be half of what is currently being provided by LP providers.
By using the protocol fee to own LP, Omm can perhaps lower the emission of OMM towards LP providers (range of 20 - 50%) and will also enable Omm to earn OMM tokens through its own liquidity.
Sounds good as long as we have enough for other use cases should they arise or if we are happy to take some back out of LPs if needed