Proposal Title:
Unification of OATH and GRAIN
Proposal Chain:
Ethereum
Type:
Ecosystem Sentiment Vote
Proposal Author:
Yuvi
Date:
22 Mar 24
Executive Summary:
Following informal discussion with community members, the purpose of this proposal is to gauge ecosystem sentiment regarding the unification of OATH and GRAIN under one foundation and one token.
Discussion has been considered and a potential solution for each problem has been included, however readers are reminded that nothing is locked in and I would like to seek feedback to incorporate and strengthen the plan.
Proposal Motivation:
The OATH Foundationās Collateralized Debt Position (CDP) protocols are intended to rehypothecate collateral utilising the safest possible strategies to neighbouring lending markets, while Granaryās Silos could launch native lending markets, customised to each chainās specific needs.
Aurelius has made it clear that Granary and their Silos can and will always be the āmarket next doorā. Aureliusā integrated approach simplifies the rehypothecation pipeline and significantly mitigates long tail market risks associated with rehypothecation (external teams, etc).
While the infrastructure still allows for rehypothecation external to the contained deployment, upcoming developments will continue to make the Silo base lending platform extremely competitive.
As we worked together to develop Aurelius, the pursuit of closer ties illuminated a critical flaw in the current economic structure.
Chapters are intended to benefit OATH holders, while Silos are intended to benefit GRAIN holders. As we are seeing with Aurelius, continued collaboration of the two will blur the ability to reward respective holders in a way that makes sense to both communities.
Proposal Specifics:
This proposal aims to describe a pathway to unify OATH and GRAIN, such that the teams can concentrate effort on bringing value to one token instead of two.
The unified token:
Herein referred to as ānewtokenā, pending market research and design.
Unified - Newtoken will serve as an index token for all innovation and product releases from the unified foundation, combining the value proposition of bOATH and GRAIN (wholeGRAIN, in time) into a single solution.
Single-staking - We believe that since the launch of OATH and GRAIN, we now have a strong enough case to offer single-staking. We have always been averse to it because of regulatory uncertainty but with recent legal guidelines/ precedents being set we believe we can overcome this obstacle.
Strategic value - OATH Chapters can generate X value to OATH holders and GRAIN can generate Y value to GRAIN holders but we believe that combined, the two can generate more than X+Y value. That is the premise of the unification. Streamlining governance will also free up resources for development and growth opportunities.
The chain:
Ethereum - Ethereum offers access to orders of magnitude more trader and investor interest and volume. All of the funds and investors we speak to say they prefer mainnet. Some large players have mentioned they are interested in investing but want access via Ethereum mainnet. I am interested to hear counter arguments for launching on Ethereum Mainnet other than gas.
Gas Considerations - Mainnet gas is considered expensive and we donāt want to rule people out. We would aim to develop the most gas efficient pathway to full involvement, being to simply stake the token for full access to product release and governance.
Governance:
Since OATH Governance is matured beyond GRAIN, the unified system will carry forward the OATH governance model.
Migration (here we goā¦):
Max supply 100,000,000.
Tokenomics commensurate with OATH and GRAIN tokenomics, but in favour of OATH and GRAIN holders migrating.
Currently 37% of OATH and 28% of GRAIN are in circulation, a ratio of 57:43. I propose that 40% of newtoken be allocated to the migration, such that migration results in a net increase of circulating supply with users. Migrating tokens should be accounted for in a manner commensurate with the ratio of circulating supplies. Similar to an LGE where users buy shares of the allocation and cost is determined by the ratios of circulating supply.
Example maths*:
37% * 400mil = 148,000,000 OATH circulating
28% * 800mil = 224,000,000 GRAIN circulating
40% * 100mil = 40,000,000 newtoken circulating
57% * 40mil = 22,800,000 newtoken max OATH allotment
43% * 40mil = 17,200,000 newtoken max GRAIN allotment
148mil/22.8mil = 6.49 OATH per share
224mil/17.2mil = 13 GRAIN per share
*Actual numbers are subject to change and will be confirmed at the commencement of migration.
These calculations are based on circulating supply only. I personally do not want to base the allocation on market capitalization because it is biassed and something we have no control over. Mcaps grow and shrink, people think things are under- and over-valued, and it is entirely speculative while circulating supplies are quantifiably concrete. I know people will complain about the discrepancy between monetary value and my personal position is that you can either offer a justified alternative solution, or arbitrage the migration yourself. I donāt know how else to solve it.
Based on the tokenomics of OATH and GRAIN I suggest the following:
10% allocated to liquidity (targeting centralised exchanges to increase exposure)
20% allocated to LBP^
30% allocated to strategic reserves and partnerships (including allocation to vest migration), including centralised exchange listings and HFT prop firms. We have developed relationships with larger players but our lack of being on ETH + our small size causes them to pause active investment.
^OATH and GRAIN both had around 20% allocated to respective teams but I propose committing that allocation to an LBP to get it out of team hands and into circulation. The reason for this is that it reduces long term liabilities associated with streaming to team members, especially if they choose to leave the team or if the team grows. Funds raised in the LBP should be paired with newtoken for liquidity or spent on developing and securing our product offerings. Team members can obviously still migrate their personal holdings and/or participate in the LBP.
Learning from OATHās relationship to bOATH, there is zero allocation to regular emissions/ inflation. Products will incentivize themselves, and newtoken will focus on value aggregation and ecosystem governance.
OATH and GRAIN vests:
At the end of migration, a snapshot of unclaimed OATH and GRAIN should enable us to effectively migrate vests by offering a claimable 12 month vesting NFT (token claims enabled during 12 month vest). The NFT will be tradeable allowing users to exit their positions or purchase other positions to increase their exposure.
I havenāt actually checked the dev requirement but if itās possible then I think it is a good idea (I will confirm dev requirement).
āAlways announce your ideas first and check with devs later.ā
ā A non-developer, probably
This will also have to be factored into the newtoken tokenomics and will come from the strategic reserve allocation, following the same maths as the liquid migration logic. I am yet to gather relevant vest supply data but the maths works the same way.
22 Mar 24 EDIT: 12 month vest, and NFT positions, are not confirmed.
OATH vesting is scheduled to complete on 30 Jan 26 so newtoken vesting can align with that and migrated GRAIN portions can have vesting time scaled down to match so that all vesting is complete at the same time, or GRAIN vesting migration can be layered on top. We can have a separate vote to explore options there.
NFT positions help people exit early or increase their exposure at a discount if they want to buy more vest NFTs. It also helps wallet rotators move their vests for security purposes. We can also nix the NFT idea and just migrate the vest with the same infrastructure. Happy to set up a separate vote for that also if thereās enough interest.
Ethos and Granary:
In the absence of OATH and GRAIN, Ethos and Granary will temporarily not be incentivized, less treasury assets being used for critical functions (Ethos stability pool or Granary high utilisation risk mitigation, for example).
EthosV3 will adopt the Aurelius model (e.g. integrated lending market, plus EthosV3 extras) and launch its own token and function autonomously, just like Aurelius.
Granary deployments will be maintained but if a CDP/MM launches on a chain with a Granary deployment, then that deployment will be absorbed or replaced by the new protocol, ensuring user funds are always secure and accessible.
Potential Alternative Course of Action:
If the community has strong enough conviction and justification, it is possible to not deprecate GRAIN and OATH, and allow them to coexist with newtoken, servicing respective Granary and Ethos deployments.
This would narrow the scope of GRAIN and OATH to simply support their particular deployments and not the broader ecosystem as they do now.
Team Experience:
The OATH team and GRAIN team have been working alongside each other since they were respectively founded. Granary was founded independently before coming into the Byte Masons umbrella and until now worked independently of the OATH foundation to achieve its own roadmap / growth strategy.
Key Objectives & Success Metrics:
The pathway to unification should be logical, obtainable, and address technical debt liabilities as they pertain to both teams.
Length of Engagement & Budget Breakdown:
The duration of engagement is indefinite and there is no change to budgets. Unification of tokens is primarily administrative and will help achieve long term growth goals in a more focused way. Of note is the impact on Digit, Ethos, and Granary protocols. While Granary and Ethos have evolutionary pathways, Digit can be absorbed into respective deployments (Ć la Harbor Market) that will support their own relics.
Community Support:
The community has expressed interest and support in conversations in telegram. Some concerns and considerations have been raised and noted and are hopefully addressed in this proposal. Continual feedback is strongly encouraged, and possible solutions are much more helpful than outright rejections.
The Granary team has expressed their support and are welcome to provide additional context and feedback.
Partnerships:
Unification would leverage the inherent partnership with the Granary team.
Risk Assessment:
Conflicts of interest may hinder team relationships however this has not presented as an issue thus far and is not reasonably foreseeable.
Additional Details:
Please provide constructive feedback. I have tried to assess each problem logically and analytically however if you strongly disagree with something, please provide justification of an alternative instead of unfounded rejection.
If supported I will continue to parse data and provide details including historical revenue and projections, migration details, resourcing, etc.