- Discussions/
- #232/
Exclude assets from the Omnipool that do not meet the minimum threshold. Buy an OHM (Olympus) and place it in an Omnipool.
Hi HydraDAO! I would like to bring up for discussion the issue of finding some assets in Omnipool that cause me concern. As an HDX holder, I am also a partial POL holder, and the health of the Omnipool directly depends on the assets that are in it. In my opinion, it is necessary to set a threshold, say, in the equivalent of ~$100,000, below which the asset will be considered toxic and subject to exclusion from the Omnipool (for example, transferring this asset to a xyk pool). Teams of such abandoned projects literally take advantage of the general liquidity of Hydration and can dump their free tokens on hydraheads with minimal slippage.
Hydration has proven its effectiveness, has proven its importance, and therefore it's time to raise the criteria level not only for entry, but also for further stay in the Omnipool.
TL DR I propose to exclude all assets with a value below the threshold of $100,000 from the Omnipool.
My second suggestion is to send part of the funds from POL (or treasury or H2O...) for the purchase of OHM (Olympus). Perhaps in the future we could loop OHM and provide the OHM holders on Ethereum with the possibility of looping with minimal fees and a clear, predictable liquidation mechanism. Which is impossible to achieve on the Ethereum and other L2 networks.
Regarding the second part of the proposal, I would like Ben and Jakub to speak personally.,i know a lot about Zeus and Olympus, but since I'm nobody, my information about the project and its development, as well as my proposal, mimics shilling and shit posting. I know that HydraDX, Olympus, and ZeePrime were connected in a special way, and was a lot of communication with Zeus (the creator and gigamind of Olympus). Jakub and those who were the first investors in Zeus' idea of Olympus can tell you much more about the advantages of investing in OHM. After all, the Hydration in its current form has taken a lot from Olympus and Zeus' vision of Defi 2.0.
TL DR I suggest buying a OHM (Olympus) for $100,000 on the Ethereum network and including it in the Omnipool
Remove : ZTG - RING - CRU - INTR - KILT - UNQ // From the Omni-Pool
these teams, communities / projects are defunct
I do not support anything involving OHM - scam team & project -
Edited
It could very easily happen that those currently under $100K surpass that threshold with a small pump in a bull market.
Labeling these teams as “toxic” or as “abandoned projects” makes no sense especially when, in the second part of the discussion, you suggest buying OHM, lol.
To be brief, I believe that those already in the Omnipool should remain there. These are Polkadot ecosystem projects that have met the necessary criteria to be included. With a modest market move, they could exceed $100K or far more once again.
Also, I’m against buying OHM, particularly when your reasoning seems driven by petty personal interest.
I am curious what your definition of toxic is here and how something with such a small percentage of the pool could be detrimental to the overall Omnipool. The whole point of the Omnipool is that no assets is large enough to cause an issue to the pool. Also just because an assethas dropped below $100K doesn't make it toxic or a problem. This could all be due to market conditions as these assets met the criteria to be included initially. All it would take is a market correction for some of these to put them well above the cap you suggest right now.
Now I am all for removing assets that are proven rugs or can be directly shown to be a dumping ground for the founders but these kind of things need more back up that just ones opinion, even if it is echoed by a couple of others that don't even know the projects they are talking about. The criteria to add to the Omnipool is high and thus the criteria to be removed from the Omnipool should be just as high not some arbitrary threshold value.
Not even going to touch on adding a rebase token to the pool, that would truly be toxic.
I really support all the statements on the first point, the UNQ network is a toxic project in omnipull and I, as a member of the hydration protocol, although a small part of it, vote for its delisting, and projects such as UNQ and Interlay only slow down its development, new market players need to see a strong business development model, not projects in omnipool that they are not trustworthy.