βœ… [RFC] Amendment to TDP 25

Summary

This suggests an amendment to TDP 25 to change the LP token used to purchase MTA bonds from cvxmusd3crv to mUSD for the 2nd round of Olympus Pro bond issuance.

Abstract

When the LP token for the Olympus Pro Bonds was initially picked, we anticipated that owners of a Convex mUSD position would like an easy and simple exit out from the liquidity pair, and we wanted to enable the capture of this via the Olympus Pro bond program.

The first round of bonds have shown us that much more people were interested in purchasing bonds directly, and not from the other end, so I suggest to switch the LP token currently being used to buy MTA Bonds to mUSD to allow for easier entry into the bond program, and give the treasury more flexibility on how to utilize the liquidity in the future.

Motivation

We’ve received a lot of feedback regarding the LP token used for Olympus Pro, and following the deposits made into the contract confirms that a simpler token for bonding is required to satisfy the usability of these bond purchases.

As a side note, the team at Olympus Pro has also confirmed that we can and most likely will increase the amount of tokens that can be bonded with every transaction in the next round, based on demand and feedback received by the community.

Pros

  • Easier entry into the Olympus Pro ecosystem
  • Better gas efficiency when trying to purchase MTA via bonds
  • Higher bond amounts in a single transaction

Cons

  • Exiting from the Convex LP position will be more difficult, and we cannot capture liquidity as easily on the way out

Next Steps

It is suggested that the community comment on this RFC in the coming days, and bearing no significant opposition or change in ideation, we would move ahead with this RFC next week and create a formal draft proposal on Github to be used for review.

Meta Governors are encouraged to provide as much feedback as possible until then, so we can create the best possible outcome for mStable and its users.

2 Likes

I can get down with this. But, what does the protocol intend to do with the mUSD. For instance if the protocol just intends to place it in mSave it may as well bond imUSD. There has also been alot of discussion of bonding mUSD to MTA. Although I am extremely fond of an mUSD/MTA PCV the issue is that we are already incentivizing an MTA/ETH pair on Balancer and this was introduced relatively recently. My vote would be to bond mUSD/ETH as Frax has done for FRAX/ETH. This captures ETH upside which I am bullish long term on.

1 Like

I’m in favor of this. I had actually made this proposition before we began :grin:

2 Likes

Definitely makes things easier. UX wise an improvement, and mUSD is already by itself a LP position. Wonder if we should do mUSD/3CRV? Or where do we want to put the mUSD afterwards?

1 Like

I think the idea internally was to make the onboarding as easy as possible, and with a mUSD/3CRV LP token, we once again introduce complexity and inflexibility into the system.

In regards to use-case, we also wanted to stay flexible and see how to best utilize these mUSD in the ecosystem once the bonding period has ended. The idea would of course be to benefit the ecosystem in some way or form, but also to have some mUSD liquidity available in the treasury.

We can discuss the use in a further RFC, and give proper time and attention to this then, does that sound ok?

Would be great to know if you’re ok with this otherwise, as this is sort of a time-sensitive endeavour, and if no more critique comes, I’ll prepare the TDP on this for next week! :innocent:

1 Like

Yeah yeah, all for! Just want to consider the implications future plan with the mUSD. That can be at a later stage of course.

1 Like

Yes, this should and will be a lot of fun to get into! It’s a sizable amount as well, so really keen to see which direction this future RFC will take :grin: