a third party proposed increasing the Olympus CDs cap to $60mil with a $5mil/day target proposer funded directly from large wallet that recently bought $4m of OHM on open market, so clearly wants exposure. reminder: deposits to CDs have all yield go to buying back and burning OHM => makes the CDs more likely to convert profitably => new deposits to CDs higher EV => positive feedback loop $50m of hypothetical CDs (idk how much they want in reality) = extra $5.5m/yr annualized buybacks just from the CDs if they don't convert, free $5.5m of buybacks and protocol gives nothing back in exchange, win. if they do convert, backing goes 10%, everyone can borrow 10% more per OHM => hOHM does another $15m in OHM purchases over the following yr, which... makes it more attractive for someone to ape another $50m into CDs and start it all over again (idk if the proposer will ape 50mil or anything at all, but seems odd to propose this if you didn't want to use it)

Gnosis GIP-150 failed 28/72. Strip out Gnosis Ltd leadership's votes and it flips to 78% in favour. Non-team holders want a fair exit and an answer on the NAV discount. Leadership's response: maybe more spending, no exit. Longer version: GIP-150 did not pass. The final vote was 28% in favour, 72% against. Excluding Gnosis Ltd leadership’s tokens shifts the result to 78% in favour. Their personally held tokens are legitimate, circulating, and rightly count. It is only the Ltd-held GNO that we categorically reject as circulating until it is deployed on endeavours generating greater than 1x ROI. This breakdown matters because it makes a structural problem unavoidable. The same three individuals are Gnosis Ltd cofounders, Ltd executives, and as co-founders of Gnosis, the largest individual GNO holders. They are funded by the DAO, operate the entities receiving DAO funding, and hold the voting power that decides whether that funding continues. Their personal token votes are not cast as independent tokenholders weighing a proposal on the merits; they are cast in alignment with their roles as cofounders and directors of the entity the proposal affects. When the votes attributable to that concentration are removed, the remaining holders speak clearly: 78% in favour of a fair exit and an honest answer to the discount to NAV. What is currently being represented as “the DAO’s view” is in substance the founders’ view, voted through by founders, on a proposal that constrained the founders’ own operational latitude. That is not a decentralized DAO. The substance of the result is unambiguous regardless of how one feels about the specific mechanism. There is clear and undeniable support among GNO holders outside of Gnosis Ltd leadership for meaningful change, along with a mandate to prioritise trading above true NAV at the bare minimum and providing a fair exit mechanism for those unwilling to remain through another pivot. A protective mechanism for those willing to give the new vision a chance, without necessarily signing the entire treasury away to spending, should also exist. Both should co-exist, and become part of Gnosis DAO. The response from leadership in the days following the beginning of the vote has been the opposite of what a 78% non-team result calls for. Leadership has verbally floated a meaningfully higher operational spending envelope for the next funding cycle, as well as a hostility towards exploring a solution, while pretending there was interest from third parties to purchase participations in GNO, yet these third parties would not even buy it below NAV. Reading a result in which 78% of non-team holders signalled they want a path to realize NAV as a mandate to ignore an adequate exit solution and increase spending is not a tenable position. It is the precise inverse of what was voted for, and it confirms the concern that motivated this proposal: that operational discretion at Gnosis Ltd is being exercised without regard to the tokenholders the DAO exists to serve. We will give leadership a week to reflect on this striking result and consider whether they genuinely accept its implications. If they do, and wish to engage on shaping the next proposal to protect non-team GNO holders, we are ready to work with them. If leadership continues to disregard the outcome, we will have no choice but to bring forward a further proposal without their input. We trust that there will be no additional spending bruteforced through by these founder-held tokens, against the spirit of a decentralized DAO. Defensive voting with 385k GNO over disagreements on mechanism is one thing. Using that same concentration to force non-consensual spending increases against a vote that just produced a 78% non-team signal for value return is quite another, and would be impossible to reconcile with any claim that this is a tokenholder-governed organization. We look forward to engaging further with GNO holders to shape the proposal. Whether you are a long-term holder or a new holder, please reach out to provide input.

will be buying more GNO and put forward a new proposal soon - 'wait this out' isn't going to work here. Further, I think conflicted founders swinging the vote here is one thing (have my own thoughts, but whatever), but swinging the vote when it comes to the next funding proposal to their own org would be something else entirely.. If @StefanDGeorge @tw_tter want to engage on what the next proposal looks like then happy to get something acceptable to both sides passed asap, otherwise we'll probably be posting GIPs 151-200 until GNO holders finally have some financial protection against what is increasingly obvious - that many people see GNO holders' treasury as an infinite pot of cash for their feel good, zero revenue projects. we will get checks and balances introduced, buying more until it's done.

The word is out. OPAL draws near. A new DeFi primitive and a huge undertaking by @origami_fi devs 🫶 Based on the architecture of hOHM (±$92M TVL / holding 42% of gOHM supply) TL;DR: - Autonomous tokenised balance sheets - Can manage multiple assets, liabilities and protocol positions across multiple different markets simultaneously - Instant and proportional deposits and exits - Atomically executed rebalances - Shares are ERC20 - Low fees Launching this week with a folded "Perpetual PT" @ethena sUSDe vault on @Plasma: - Autorolls @pendle PTs at expiry - Looped via @aave - 0.5% AUM fee More vaults to be released gradually across more chains over the next weeks/months/years as we explore the full design space that OPAL creates In-depth technical articles threads about OPAL architecture inbound Audited by the legendary @NethermindSec, @panprog and @jacolansac ❤️ Monitored by @HypernativeLabs Stay tuned!

slowly coming around to @fiddyresearch enshrined RAI as signal of coordinated resistance to these overreaches.

Inverse Finance $INV Thesis @InverseFinance was my first 10x call that got me noticed last cycle and I believe it’s primed for a similar explosive move to become the largest decentralized stablecoin in crypto. Fundamentals have never been stronger, whereas the $INV price has barely moved from bear market lows. I go into detail as to why I believe this, but in summary here’s a TLDR: - $DOLA bad debt is now tiny and soon to be zero - TVL at ATHs and increasing parabolically whereas price is still in an accumulation zone - Revenue at 11m compared to a $28m MC - $22.5m treasury with only $2.4m of that in $INV -Monolith launch very soon - Base and Ethereum aligned What Is Inverse If you’ve been following me for a while you likely know what @InverseFinance is, but in short it’s a fixed rate money market and CDP ( $DOLA) stablecoin protocol, allowing depositors to borrow $DOLA against their crypto for a fixed interest rate. The mechanism for how Inverse achieves this is beyond the scope of this post, but its architecture is very impressive. Zero Bad Debt (Soon) @InverseFinance’s growth has been stifled by $DOLA bad debt accrued through some issues in 2022. Through DAO repayments, OTC sales, and soon to be loans against treasury assets, the bad debt will soon be zero and is already only $3.4m out of a $DOLA supply of $110m. A significant portion of the bad debt has recently been paid off via OTC sales to @templedao, @dcfgod, @chud_eth, @_Greenfund, @0ctoshi and @Sshxbt. Having the (continued) support of the foregoing will bring more attention to the platform and the current $INV dislocation of price to fundamentals. Eliminating the bad debt makes the DAO more profitable, will increase $DOLA borrowing (which increases revenues), and allows the DAO to focus on other maters (debt repayment has been priority number 1). That @NourHaridy and the team such as @patb @theAlienTourist @08xmt and others have stuck it out these last few years while they could have gone elsewhere for greater short-term gain gives me a lot of comfort in their conviction and that they’ll stick around for years in the future. TVL TVL is at all time highs and has begun to increase parabolically in the last month since the bad debt elimination proposal, whereas the $INV price is still in an accumulation zone. The @DefiLlama chart above paints a pretty picture. As the chart below also shows, once INV moves, it moves quickly, due to somewhat thin on-chain liquidity paired with a Coinbase listing. As an aside, I doubt this post will cause the almost inevitable explosive move(s). One benefit of being less active on X is the lack of activity means the X algo doesn’t favor my content like it did last cycle, allowing you and others who have continued to read my content a chance to consider accumulating before the masses. Revenue and Related Metrics Inverse’s revenue metrics are unparalleled. @patb publishes great Inverse data monthly (most recent is here: x.com/patb/status/1954279384…) and here’s what I find most interesting: - Revenue ($11m p/a) is approximately 40% of $INV’s $28m MC. This 40% is at least 2x and on average 9x greater than competitors like $SKY $FXS $LQTY and $ALCX - Inverse generates significantly more revenue per dollar of TVL than its competitors. See below for what this looked like last month and it has now increased further to 5.6c per dollar of TVL Or put another way, compare MCs to revenue (table below taken from values at the start of August, which, like revenue per dollar of TVL are even better today) Treasury Inverse has the 22nd largest treasury when excluding native tokens, equating to 71% $INV’s MC. Pretty amazing for any protocol, let alone a protocol that was initially distributed via an airdrop without any capital raise. Monolith Monolith will soon be released and is a stablecoin-as-a-service platform, enabling permissionless creation of immutable stablecoins using any collateral on any chain. For example, protocols could mint their own stable versus their own token in their treasuries, making their treasuries productive. These stables will be paired with $DOLA in metapools, increasing $DOLA liquidity while not exposing $DOLA to any increase in bad debt risk. I speculate at least a portion of Monolith revenues will be directed to $INV. And the above misses potentially the largest benefit: given Monolith has effectively been incubated by Inverse, a substantial portion of Monolith tokens will likely be distributed to the Inverse DAO and/or $INV stakers. Nothing has yet been announced, but such a distribution is likely in my opinion. Base and Ethereum Aligned Given we’re currently in Ethereum season and a Base Season is on the horizon, protocols aligned with both will do well. It’s hard to think of a more aligned protocol than Inverse: to take two examples, Inverse is one of the largest locked $AERO holders and $DOLA is one of the largest and most liquid stables on Base. Conclusion So there you have it – an Ethereum/Base aligned protocol that is 3-10x more profitable per dollar of TVL than competitors, whose price has barely moved despite ATH TVLs, and the largest risk facing it has recently been eliminated. If you do choose to buy, buy the correct $INV, since there is more than one. coingecko.com/en/coins/inver… I am very bullish, as are the following: @CryptoAndolini @wezekbruh @TheCryptoFool @DefiIgnas @WIP_DEFI @cryptoendgamer @eldarcap @Bull1shkid @CurveCap @sDolaBull

DOLA BAD DEBT ELIMINATION PROPOSAL: We’re excited to announce a proposal to raise $2.6M from some of DeFi’s most prominent investors and power users @dcfgod, @templedao, @_greenfund, @0ctoshi, @chud_eth and @sshxbt for the purpose of immediate DOLA bad debt repayment. The proposal also requests authorization to repay the remaining $3.4M bad debt using a protocol loan. This proposal presents an opportunity to return DOLA back to 0 bad debt soon while aligning new strategic stakeholders with the DAO’s vision. Read more on the forum below 👇

Introducing Cooler Loans V2, the new standard for protocol-owned, borrower-first lending. Perpetual, fixed-rate borrowing backed directly by the Olympus Treasury. No oracles. No price-based liquidations. No dependency on external lenders. Here is how it works and why it matters: 👇

What is osBGT? osBGT is a BGT LST aggregator, it's fully collateralized by all the various BGT LSTs held under its PSMs. What is the current backing composition of osBGT? For launch osBGT is 100% backed by @InfraredFinance 's iBGT powered by @origami_fi 's oriBGT.

Hearing rumors of a POL integrated tvl sink for auto-leveraged OHM

oh?

Boyco

Growing token supply in crypto isn't good for you. It works against you. $ohm by @OlympusDAO is the only protocol where inflation is good for all holders. Am I dreaming or have I come across the perfect asset? See why for yourself and pinch me if wrong ⤵️

🔸SEED RAISE ANNOUNCEMENT🔸 henlo we are excited to announce origami has secured $1.5M in seed funding 🎉 🌱