[OIP-DRAFT] Ethos Unification Proposal

Definitely a lot to digest here. I completely agree with all of the issues or problems presented in this proposal by Everett. I think it’s crucial that they be rectified as I also agree it is holding the entire oath ecosystem back from getting the attention and use that I think it deserves to be getting even at these early stages of development. I’ll leave the solutions for those more involved and capable of figuring those things out but it definitely seems like there’s still some discussion needed on that. I really like the direction Everett is headed here though, and I think he is the right person to be involved in this. But it sounds like there is a disconnect between his vision and the teams and it would be nice to see more of an alignment there.

I do strongly feel however, that whatever solutions are proposed, things need to be consolidated as much as possible behind the OATH brand. And if we’re talking one domain or app, then my vote is for oath.eco, as that makes the most sense for the oath ecosystem. I do find everything to be very fragmented and disconnected, even down to the naming and theme of the different products under the oath umbrella. I’d love to see a much more homogenous and united approach to everything, to the point where there is absolutely no question that you’re dealing with a product or app that is within the greater oath ecosystem, even if just aesthetically. And since OATH is the name of the foundation, the ecosystem, and the token…then it only makes sense to me that any adjustments be made towards that end.

1 Like

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and proposal regarding the UI/UX consolidation of the Oath ecosystem presented in the forum. While the focus on streamlining user experience is commendable, based on my experience in DeFi, I believe the primary challenge in attracting new users, traders, or speculators is not the UI/UX but rather the lack of social awareness about DeFi and the Oath ecosystem. Efforts should be directed towards increasing visibility and understanding through collaborations with Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs). This approach could be more effective in demystifying DeFi and drawing in a broader audience.

Additionally, I support the idea of implementing the proposed UI/UX improvements in the future. However, this should be contingent on the adoption rate of OATH and its products. As the platform and its offerings gain traction in the DeFi space, it will be more justified to invest in these enhancements. This strategy ensures that resources are allocated efficiently, aligning with the growth and success of the OATH ecosystem. Prioritizing efforts in enhancing social awareness currently, with a view to revisiting UI/UX enhancements in line with future growth, seems to be a pragmatic and strategic approach.


I agree with Lunaman. Let’s focus on marketing. An overhaul of the UI/UX would take a lot of time/energy from everyone. Let’s take small steps there? First improve the link between the brands under the oath umbrella. Stuff like font faces and coloring plus a link in the menu’s to other products and oath.eco summing it all up. And put most energy in getting new users into the eco system, with v2 and LST support and current momentum there is a lot of opportunity here and now to grow


I’d love to hear more on how spreading awareness for a liquity fork and a yield app will specifically work. What are the steps that would successfully convert users? Are they new to crypto? Do they know what stablecoins are? Are these users mainly in defi to farm yield? Why would they use these apps over their original counterparts? If they use our products for a week then never come back, do you consider that success?

Let’s look at the competition.

Prisma managed to get quite some TVL on board as a liquity fork. With conditions not as good as ethos is offering once we have wstETH live (for example they charge a 4% borrow interest rate).

Main focus should be Ethos imo. It is already quite good. A bit confusing still opening and managing positions. Prisma does this better. What if we integrate the digit ERN Relics directly on Ethos UI? We could upsell people from there to go to digit to see Relics on the other Stablecoins.

Same integration on ethos with bOath relics.

Solve the lack of a Redemption UI

Then imo the UI wouldn’t be the thing slowing us down?

I am suggesting to take a more pragmatic step by step approach then going for a full overhaul right now. The questions you ask are good questions and need to be asked in any chosen path going forward


I apologize if the proposal isn’t clear on execution. What you explained is what I am proposing. The first three months are to build, iterate, refine, and deliver a better loan product (currently Ethos Reserve). If this proves to be fruitful, the same infrastructure could be used to further develop the ecosystem in a cohesive manner. There is no hard commitment. Work could halt at any time and the products would still function.

I do understand the fear of being left with product built on a different architecture, but it’s well documented and easy to maintain. Anyways, I’ll always be around to help with whatever they need.

I’ve been with the team from the start and I’d never propose something that would compromise their ability to deliver their products. While we’re here debating if a new app is necessary, top teams are working on their 2025 product releases that abstract away all of the current UX hurdles.

1 Like

Highly respect everyone’s opinion in here. I’d just like to add that I personally really think this problem is one that needs to be somewhat solved before too much effort is spent on marketing tbh. First impressions are everything and you can market and advertise all you want, if people come and find things complicated and confusing and decide to leave and go somewhere else then that marketing was a waste of time, money and resources. And the chances of them returning are likely pretty slim even if you fix things up later on. Not a chance we should take imo. Reading through comments on discord today made me come back here to see how this proposal is going, because there’s some very relevant comments there. It’s pretty clear this is a pressing issue and that even experienced defi users are finding things convoluted and difficult to navigate. Aesthetics and making things look pretty and unified aside, I think it’s a pressing issue that we need to simplify the user experience asap.


Must say I really your mockups. Just not sure personally if a complete overhaul is necessary(3 months and 45k). I am not an expert, just voicing my opinion here.


When looking at the discussion here and on discord it seems that most people seem to agree on the need to do something about the UI/UX but there seems to be many different opinions on what that something should look like.

I think it is critical for the success of oath that we can land on a well thought out path to move forward. As many have said the tech is good, the protocols work BUT they’re complicated to navigate and use and do not necessarily inspire confidence. Obviously, we know the team is trustworthy and professional, but I feel like new people landing on ethos for example might be scared off by how it looks to some degree. I also fully agree with crypt0c’s last post. Why market too much when people won’t stay after seeing the app?

I personally like the vision Sober has and his sketches, but also feel like the disconnect that the team and Sober have should be worked through if we decide to go through with this proposal in one form or another. I would be happy to vote for the approval of the proposal if you guys find a common ground on the path to move forward, whether it be the full overhaul or some lighter polishing up, or something in between.

One idea I had to possibly mitigate the financial burden for the foundation was if Sober would be willing to take part of the pay later after ethos reaches certain TVL for example, but I feel like this would be best negotiated between someone who knows the finances of the foundation and Sober.

My bottom line, something needs to be done, I like Sobers vision, but I want the team to agree with the path we decide to go and hear from the team that we won’t go financially under because of a UI overhaul.


This is the current state of the Byte Masons user-facing products:

Would Bebis or another team member care to elaborate on their solutions and how they contrast mine?

Bebis already mentioned a few here:

but I’m curious if things have developed and if there are any new insights?


The advancements in tokenomics are understood and deep in development.
Contracts for oOATH and exercising will be deployed and implemented when they are ready.

Redesigning the communication strategy and community engagement and management are largely an overlapping effort and have massively improved and are ongoing.

For me, the conversion funnel is what we are talking about.

I am of the opinion that this should happen after Aurelius launches, as the first chapter, and should resemble the aggregation of OATH resources and services via the oath.eco page.

Conceptually this echoes your proposal.

In practice, with the launch of Ethos V2, we have in-house front end specialists who are incredibly well-versed at surfacing our systems on front ends, and as their capacity grows post V2 deployment, can handle the aggregation of features.

The crux for me is the $ cost of hiring your company to provide a service, which I have no doubt is exemplary, but that we can mostly (note, perhaps not fully) achieve internally.

What I’m not sure we can replicate is your design skills regarding how the front end should look and feel to service the next wave of users.

My suggestion is that we find an arrangement where you provide iterative design consultation to the team to help us converge on a superior appearance.

Once oath.eco becomes a priority (ideally post Aurelius), we can arrange for regular design reviews to assess the direction of oath.eco development.

The reason I defer to post-Aurelius is that it lets us build oath.eco with chapters in mind, as we will immediately be able to present Ethos V2 as well as the first chapter, in the design, and facilitate for future chapters.

I believe this approach makes more sense strategically and economically and I welcome feedback.

I appreciate the response Yuvi. You’re a class act.

It’s respectable, the belief you have in the front-end team, but sadly, I don’t share it. These “specialists” have failed to deliver a competitive (and quite frankly, functional) product. I don’t mean to insult, but they would be fired if they worked for me.

People always praise me for my designs, but the reality is that they don’t solve problems on their own. Execution is my service.

If money is the issue, I’m willing to work with the team on a solution that is contingent on the success of my deliverables.

I don’t mean to be insulting, but walking on eggshells isn’t conducive to business. I hope you understand <3

1 Like

Our features are continually evolving and our approach to development needs to be sustainable, and paying your firm to develop the product to a state is not repeatable in the long term.

It’s like paying for a car restoration every few years instead of taking the time to learn how to fix/ maintain a car. Perhaps not the best analogy but reflects my sentiment.

I would still prefer to have the core team develop to the best of their abilities, and maintain regular consultation touchpoints with your firm. It is clear we have a lot to learn from you, and if elements of execution land outside of our ability, then it should fall within the scope of a consulting agreement.

I don’t think it is a massive deviation from what you are proposing. Perhaps it compromises your level of final product in exchange for sustainable continuity, but that’s a reasonable tradeoff to me.

The code, design system, assets, and all additional resources would be delivered with full documentation. This is so that my team would no longer be necessary. You would maintain the car yourselves, it would just be a much nicer car that also happens to be super easy to work on.

Another topic that I was abstaining myself on voicing my opinion since I lack the knowledge. I am an electrician and UX for me is a cable label at best.

Jokes aside, I want to at least voice my opinion regarding those last messages between The proposer and yuvi (I still talk about you to my friends and co-workers as the guy who fixed a heavy machine using discord chat).

This topic / proposal is where we should actually focus atm (imho). I understand that BM / Oath foundation is focusing on B2B and spending 45k for something that would be a more like a “retail facing result” is not ideal, But, I guess we shouldn’t ignore this aspect. I get that that BM has it’s specialists working on that, but I am following the project since the begging and UI / UX was never the best delivery from the team. I see amazing ideas, good execution and it is lovely to listen to JB on podcasts because you can see how much he cares and how much he is devoted to the job. That said, UI/UX team isn’t being able to follow up on delivering a good product when “we” have so many products.

And please yuvi, don’t use “we have specialists” as a point of argument because I have seen too many “specialists” in my professional life that couldn’t do something very basic. I am not here to judge UX/UI BM team capabilities, just saying that I don’t like this as an argument. What we had and currently have as result is the material for arguing.

I get a little bit frustrated seeing Governors (that are following the project very closely) getting confused with redeems on Ethos. If they are dip on the project and are getting confused what do you think it is going to happen the wave of new users that we want really comes to oath eco?

I suggest that the team, governors and forum committees get together and at least propose something to get some of those ideas and mix with current UI / UX team and put it on practical. Maybe not having to rely on the proposer’s service for a long time, but maybe for a short time, as consulting and maybe extra workers while the BM team may be overloaded.

(Long text of a non native English speaker, I bag your pardon for any lack of clarity)


I find the proposed concept very good, although I am not yet ready to vote for it. However, it is important that something happens in the Oath ecosystem that brings the users of the products to the forefront. I do not have the technical knowledge to understand how smart contracts work or how Real Yield is generated. What Ethos 1 and 2 need are clear explanations for those who are not deeply involved in the subject matter. It does not help to simply orient towards the user experience (UX) designs of other protocols, as in my opinion, there is currently no truly user-friendly UX for end-users in the DeFi space.

The first step should be to identify the needs of the users. What does a customer want? What motivates them to use one of the BM products? User journeys should be defined, including the way a user gets money into their wallet. Do they come from a Centralized Exchange (CEX)? Do they use Onramp platforms and transfer directly to their wallet? Who are the products intended for? Beginners, advanced users, experts, or degens?

If we now focus only on ETHOS and leave all other BM platforms aside, the following use cases would be interesting to me:

  1. As a user, I want to hold my BTC/ETH without losing them, but earn some interest on the side, as I will not sell until at least three years from now or until a new all-time high.
  2. I want to achieve higher returns with a bit more risk, without running the risk of losing my valuable assets.
  3. I want to hedge against market fluctuations and therefore loan against my BTC to the extent that I am sure in the event of a price drop.
  4. I want to loan against my assets to the maximum and put them in a loop to accumulate as much BTC or ETH as possible to maximize profits in case of a price increase. It is particularly important to keep an eye on my current position for a potential repayment, as such could ruin my plans if someone redeems my position.
  5. Looping an asset could be simplified as a use case for users. However, this would require a precise explanation of the consequences and risks.
  6. Everyone on Ethos should have the opportunity to redeem. I think there are some who are not able to operate a smart contract but would like to exchange ERN, especially when it is below the peg.

"I agree with the governors that there are significant issues with the user experience (UX) of BM products. There is a lack of consistency across the various BM products. Frequently, designs are overly complex with nested boxes, or they incorporate elaborate background images with parallax effects that add no real value. Additionally, it’s unclear for which device the product is primarily designed. It makes a difference whether something is designed for mobile devices or for desktop applications. However, creating a responsive design shouldn’t be a problem.

From my observation, there is a lack of fundamental design elements. Arbitrary breakpoints are chosen, and there’s a missing structure for font types like h1, h2, h3, h4, and body text, as well as a lack of consistent font styles. There is a missing hierarchy in the visualization. It should be clearly defined when to use which font size and type in a product. And those who use a central axis in their design must know exactly what they’re doing, as otherwise, it unfortunately looks bad (apologies for the expression).

A design system would help the developers. This applies to both the designers of an application and the developers. If such a system is created in collaboration between designers and developers, then afterwards, one can have a component that can be used across all products. You do the work once, and then, if desired, you can still adjust the style for the respective chapter.

To better understand what I mean, feel free to look at the work we have done for Deutsche Telekom, which is now available as open-source:
Webpack App"

I’d be interested in looking into a unified app that breaks into something new that leans away from the product versions we have now.

Something that retail could use without known or caring about the underlying tech… not sure if that made sense.



I think the UX challenge is the most important effort for Q1.

I have been thinking about this during the holidays. Putting a lot of effort into oath.eco doesn’t make sense to me because it is basically the “corporate site”. What is important is the ethos site. This is where we need to make improvements because this is what people will be using the most hopefully once we can start marketing our offer which is the best available (zero interest lending against LSDs).

What needs to be done imo is just to make it more simple to use and understand. Right now you land on the dashboard and there is way to much information presented. And it is presented in terms that only pro users understand. “Position, Stability Pool, Staking Pool”. No retail user will understand on first landing what the hell this protocol is about. Also going further the terminology is unclear for retail users (terms like troves, collateral multiplier for example).

I have been looking for an example and found Prisma Finance the best to use as reference.

Landing on their app it is immediately clear what it is about: " Choose a collateral to borrow against" followed by the collateral types. (link: Prisma Finance). Could we just rearrange our landing page to something similar? They use the term VAULT instead of Position which sounds a lot better. People feel safer to deposit. Also the kpi’s of each type are presented clearly

Second most important section is the EARN section. If we could move our Stability Pool and Stake pages under such a section that would be a lot clearer. Ideally a user could also manage his Digit relics there removing the need to go off the ethos site.

Reaper is already in the background, no need to look into it. Same for now for Digit if we could integrate at least the bOAth and ERN relic management under a EARN section on ethos.

If we had an Redemption UI anyone could have taken ERN to 0.995 peg. Now it is to hard to do it. This sucks bigtime. Again look at how Prisma does this. Nice and easy to understand. link: Prisma Finance

Guys, honestly I think just by rearranging the ethos site and changing the terminology we can make big steps in the right direction. This should not be to costly nor time consuming. The clock is ticking if we want to grow in the coming bull run we need to make haste. Otherwise we are still at 3 cents next christmas…

Prisma is just an example please let’s look at this from a novice users perspective and adjust Ethos accordingly.

Pardon my language, im am not a native speaker.


I agree simplifying the user experience needs to be a priority. This was being discussed a few days ago in discord and bebis was saying they wanted a super simplified user experience to go along with their new marketing strategy by end of Q1. AS also touched on how this was priority. So sounds like everyone is on the same page on that front which is great to see.

Solving the whole redemptions/keeping ERN close to peg issue definitely needs to be a priority also. People gonna get pretty annoyed pretty fast if they come use the product for the first time and get redeemed right away, or keep getting redeemed. Or have to keep a stupid high CR just so they don’t get redeemed. I think that’s also the kind of thing that will turn users away and they likely won’t come back.