MOGA: Make Onomy Great Again - A Restructuring Plan

MOGA: Make Onomy Great Again - A Restructuring Proposal

This post is providing a pathway forward for the Onomy DAO to Make Onomy Great Again (MOGA). If you are not yet up to speed, you may catch up by reading this.

MOGA calls for a complete restructuring and rebuilding of Onomy, done right from the ground up with proven modules and providing a clear path to product deliveries. Moreover, long-overdue upgrades to the SDK versioning to be in line with best practices, many bug fixes, and directly translate to metrics like faster block times and compatibilities that lead to highly competitive products.

The Internet Financial System (IFS) the DAO has long written about and worked toward stands ready to be delivered, built on a complete rework of Onomy’s principles, values, culture, and community-led transparency.

We will not sugarcoat the situation, this journey will indeed present new challenges; but should the DAO agree to move forward with the resources and talent that stand ready to support, we can make it happen if we all do our part. At least a very strong shot at it. It only takes a little bit of orchestration amongst the talent here.

I. The Aionic Systems Proposed Reserve

  • Opaque descriptions, no documentation
  • Buy And Burn of NOM using Liquidated Collateral
    • This mechanism and the handling of the liquidated collateral itself is not provided. Additionally, there’s still debt.
  • No Outside Oracle Problem (ONEX Price Feeds)
  • The AS model uses ONEX for pricing data. Without massive liquidity, small orders will move the market enough to liquidate vaults. After the recent findings and ONEX exploit, we do not imagine LPs willing to commit substantial liquidity on the current ONEX model. No outside oracles creates a situation of extreme risk for vault owners (issuers).

II. An Alternate Pathway for The Reserve

  • Rather than try to understand Aionic System’s undocumented Reserve model or try to address what we consider as design flaws, we propose to utilize existing and proven modules that can be adapted for Onomy’s purposes. For this, we propose to fork and adapt Agoric’s IST module, which is an implementation of MakerDAO’s CDP (DAI) model for issuing stablecoins with approved collateral types.
  • In discussions with Onomy’s developer ecosystem, talent has come forward to offer a statement of work for the DAO to consider for this implementation.

Current IST module

  • Written in JavaScript so we need to re-implement it in go as a cosmos-sdk module for using it.
  • Components include:
    • Oracle handler - provided via Skip Connect, an in-protocol oracle.

  • VaultFactory - collateralized debt positions (CDP), issuing stablecoins and management of CDPs.

  • PSM - Parity Stability Module

  • Reserve - Asset reserve for all accumulated fees of the system

  • A deeper look at the protocol design can be viewed on the whitepaper here.

The Scope

The goal is to develop a stablecoin protocol based on the Agoric IST model. This protocol will allow users to mint multiple types of currency and utilize various DAO-approved assets, such as NOM, ATOM, et al, as collateral. Each collateral asset will have different collateral ratios.

Oracle Module

This module is designed for handling oracle data as the protocol needs collateral asset prices (ATOM, OSMO, NOM) based on multiple currencies (USD, EUR, JPY). For security purpose, this data should be combined from multiple sources:

  • Onomy’s validators can implement a sidecar that requires validators to submit oracle data via a price feeder. We can reference the oracle mechanism from Slinky, now named Skip Connect, which is a general purpose price oracle leveraging ABCI++.
  • Other oracle blockchains may be incorporated - like Band, Stork, etc. Band protocol supports querying oracle data though IBC.


Following the vault design, users can deposit their collateral (limit on community approved crypto-assets) to mint stablecoins. They can mint more than just one currency type (USD, EUR, JPY) as voted by the DAO with multiple collateral types (ATOM, OSMO, NOM). The amount of stablecoins that can be minted is determined by the value of the collateral in the vault, and the collateralization ratio established for that collateral type. Users can retrieve their collateral by paying back the stablecoin that was borrowed plus the stability fee, which gets allocated to the Reserve Treasury and becomes protocol-governed liquidity.

User Flow:

  1. Create Vault: users can create a vault and deposit accepted collateral to mint stablecoins.
  2. Adjust Vault: users can adjust assets in their vault by depositing more assets or withdrawing assets. This allows the user to adjust their vault’s collateralization ratio.
  3. Close Vault: users can pay back stable coins and close their vault to receive their collateral asset they initially deposited.

Note that vaults could be liquidated if its collateral rate is below the liquidation threshold.


Given the volatility of crypto-asset prices, a collateralization ratio is set for each collateral type. If the collateral value drops below the liquidation threshold, the protocol initiates the liquidation of the collateral through an on-chain auction. The auction sells collateral assets to cover the outstanding stablecoin debt in the vault, and charges a liquidation penalty to the vault. Depending on the result of the auction, excess assets may be returned to vault holders, prioritized by their collateralization ratio at the time of liquidation:

  • Matching collateral: collateral = debt
  • Liquidation penalty : Collateral * Liquidation penalty
  • Returned to user = Excess collateral - Liquidation penalty

There are 2 cases when a liquidation happens:

  1. Auction raises enough stablecoins to cover: In this case, we handle it normally and don’t need to use the reserve. Stablecoin raised by the auction are burned to reduce debt at a 1:1 ratio. The protocol takes the liquidation penalty and sends it to a reserve while excess collateral will be sent to the vault’s owner.
  2. Auction does not raise enough to cover stablecoin debt: This situation led to a shortfall, necessitating the use of Reserve Treasury to cover the debt.

Reserve Treasury

Onomy’s DAO maintains and controls the Reserve Treasury. The Reserve Treasury grows via fees collected from the system. It may be used to provide additional collateral to cover any shortfall that may result from liquidation auctions.

Auction module

The auction module handles the execution of collateral liquidation auctions, allowing users to bid on liquidated vault collateral. Onomy’s auction process would follow the descending clock auction model implemented in IST. This auction starts with a high initial price, which decreases over time until a bid is placed or the auction reaches its floor price. For collateral liquidation, the auction begins at or above the current oracle price rather than the locked price that triggered the liquidation. This approach helps ensure that the collateral is sold at fair market value, minimizing losses for both the protocol and the vault owner.

Parity Stability Module (PSM)

The Parity Stability Module (PSM) enables trading between vault-issued stablecoins and approved external stablecoins like USDC or USDT (up to a governance-determined limit). Users can provide USDT, for example, and receive newly-minted oUSD, rather than minting oUSD through a vault. This provides low cost and timely arbitrage opportunities whenever vault-issued stablecoins trades away from parity with the USD and other national currencies.


Parameters for vaults are set by governance, and may adjust to meet changing economic circumstances and risk factors.

Vault parameters include:

  • Debt limits per collateral type
  • Collateral ratio
  • Liquidation threshold
  • Minting fee
  • Stability fee
  • Liquidation penalty

Peg Mechanism

In the description below, a placeholder name $oUSD is used.

Soft Peg: $oUSD will maintain a soft peg based on market demand:

  • When $oUSD is greater than $1, users will be incentivized to deposit collateral assets to mint more $oUSD and sell it at a price > $1, gradually bringing $oUSD back to $1.
  • When $oUSD is less than $1, users/arbitrageurs will be incentivized to buy $oUSD on the open market to repay deposits and receive back collateral / LSDs, thereby incentivizing movement of $oUSD closer to the $1 peg.

Hard Peg: With a hard peg, $oUSD will maintain its price with the minting fee, which is the rate calculated for borrowing and redemption. The borrowing fee will include the base rate.

  • When $oUSD is less than $1, the protocol can increase the minting fee, making borrowing less attractive, thereby reducing the rate of increase in the supply of R, giving more time for the soft peg mechanisms to work. This increases the reserve funding to provide additional collateral where needed.
  • When $oUSD is greater than $1, the minting fee will decrease according to a predetermined formula to encourage more minters to operate, leading to additional supply of $oUSD and consequently lowering the price of $oUSD.

The first line of defense is vault overcollateralization; users manage their vaults to ensure that they have enough collateral to cover their outstanding stablecoins minted. If the value of the collateral vaults drops below the liquidation threshold, the Protocol will liquidate the vault collateral. The Reserve Treasury is used to cover any remaining shortfall. If a shortfall still remains, additional fees flowing into the Reserve Pool are used as an additional backstop. In extreme circumstances, the Onomy DAO can vote to utilize Treasury NOM to support outstanding $oUSD.

III. Timelines and Budget

The total time estimated is 16 weeks, whereby a highly detailed design document is to be provided with all adaptations from DAO discussions by Week 3. The remaining 12-13 weeks are for completing all the detailed modules and mechanisms listed to provide a production ready version for testnet, followed by mainnet shortly thereafter. This will also include protocol user and system documentation.

The estimated price is $200,000 to complete this scope of work. We are speaking with the developer ecosystem to break down this estimate into milestones that the DAO can fund upon completion. Note that none of this funding goes to the founding team and the work would be contributed by developers and validators in the ecosystem. These time estimates and costs are their quotes to the DAO.

An obstacle could be that at current prices, a substantial amount of NOM is required out of the DAO Treasury. By breaking down the total cost into milestone based payments, we can better utilize the NOM in Treasury and enable time for project and ecosystem growth that may lead to requiring far less total NOM. Additionally, the dev contributors are requesting cash payment to cover operational items that would require USD.

Additionally, the DAO should look to utilize the Treasury NOM responsibly and take care not to sell on exchanges. Treasury tokens may be offered by the DAO via discount-to-market OTC price deals bid on by DAO members. This funds the proposal and gets long-term stakeholders involved. The only risk is not finding willing counterparties.

We will inquire with the developer ecosystem partners on the appetite for all-token or partial-token payment for the services.

IV. The Future of Onomy’s IFS - Building Beyond Reserve

  1. Phasing out of ONEX Chain, ONEX coin, and the Market Module (ONEX logic). Focus all activity on NOM and the Parent Onomy Chain. Upgrade the Cosmos SDK versioning used to the latest, improve block times.
  2. New Swap DEX powered via liquidity aggregation, enabling Onomy community and all users to swap any token for any token across all major ecosystems and chains via an aggregation of all bridges (IBC, Axelar, and more). This integration anticipates enabling any user from other ecosystems to easily onboard into NOM and the Onomy ecosystem without the need for CEXs.
  3. New Orderbook functionality focused on FX markets via the Reserve stablecoins
  4. Hummingbot integration for High Frequency Trading
  5. Incentivize net-new creations built in the ecosystem (new apps, RWA markets, integrations, etc)

V. Ongoing Operational Funding for Founding Team (excluding AS)

Depending on the result of the MOGA Proposal, DAO, Community, and Partner feedback; we may look to the DAO to offer what they think is reasonable for continued funding out of the Treasury should you all agree on the path forward. You choose for us if the time comes and we will detail our contributions.

Note, we have begun the transition to take over front-end interface nodes and hosting for ongoing maintenance.

VI. Aionic Systems Involvement

Community discussions about AS’s proposal and the response has led many contributors and members of the DAO to believe that if Aionic Systems keeps its existing stake in Onomy, it imperils any efforts made to a new path forward as deposits into exchanges will continue if history teaches us any lesson. Importantly, integrity is important. Can we honestly ask partners to dedicate time and resources, or the DAO to fund new things with such a risk as has been identified?

Additionally, this leads to significantly less funding opportunities as finding OTC partners to cover operational costs, or this proposal, will prove extremely difficult.

To this end, we are compiling options discussed in the community so far - it is on you, the DAO, to make your voices heard and vote for the path forward once governance proposals in this direction are made.

1. Return half of the NOM holdings to the DAO treasury & prolong vesting for the remaining 50%

This strategy reduces potential impact by 50%, whilst giving the Onomy ecosystem enough time to breathe before the remaining 50% of tokens are unvested. It also protects part of AS’ founding stake, allowing him to enjoy upside as Onomy grows for the work done thus far even if there’s no involvement going forward.

This requires an immediate return of 50% out of ≈13M NOM, and a 1-year cliff with an additional 2-year vest following.

2. Vest all outstanding tokens to assure Onomy’s path forward

This strategy gives Onomy enough time to reorganize, build, and deploy the current roadmap, but poses the risk of excessive selling once the tokens are unvested. However, if the project is successful, enough liquidity may exist in future to support the sells.

This proposes a 2-year cliff with an additional 2-year vest following.

3. Return all outstanding tokens to the DAO treasury.

Perhaps the most extreme option, this strategy dictates that all outstanding tokens controlled by AS are returned to the DAO Treasury. This effectively cuts ties altogether with AS, but eliminates any potential upside for the individual.

4. AS retains 100% of their tokens. Onomy continues on whatever AS builds, even if it means losing core talent and contributors.

DAO Members, partners, and contributors: We kindly ask for your thoughts on this moral quandary - we believe that should AS keep all tokens, additional effort would be in vain, preventing the protocol’s growth. Indeed, Onomy was never built on the premise of token price, but instead on the ideal of building products that improve crypto’s status quo, helping it cross the chasm into long-term, mainstream usage by anyone and everyone.

However, as we’ve been shown time and time again, and granted the actions that have recently come to light, the invisible hand of the market prices the success of a protocol on its token, should that token exist. Transforming into a non-token protocol is not an option at this stage, and NOM remains an integral part of the Onomy Ecosystem. Its utility can flourish if market confidence can be maintained and not affected by irresponsible sells by the largest stakeholders.

Your Choice

Nomads, it is time to discuss this proposal and make your choices.

Please give us feedback on the following questions:

  1. Do you agree with the path forward to build out the Onomy Reserve and the costs associated with it, led by non-founding contributing entities and validators?
  2. Are you willing to support the founding team with NOM grants (based on subsequent milestone-based DAO funding requests) to maintain the front-end, conduct business development, design products, acquire new users, whilst managing the relationships with the other contributing entities?
  3. Which of the three options presented to mitigate the Aionic System risks are you most happy with? The options are:

A) Return 50% to treasury & vest rest
B) Vest all
C) Return all to the Treasury
D) Attempt to continue as is

Your feedback, support, and suggestions are essential to pushing Onomy forward.


Firstly Appreciate the effort the founding contributors have made here to reconcile a difficult reality and of course the passion of the community that has given rise to this moment.,

I believe that the experience earned to date, and how others see you react to adversity will dictate our future success - NOMAds have one choice and that is to rise to the challenge and build the greatest example of a modern DAO crypto has ever seen by using, and composing upon, the cutting edge systems and tools that we have today but also those that are not yet built, as this is our edge :ninja:-
May the DAO be will you NOMads :crossed_swords: it is time to rise !

  1. Do you agree with the path forward to build out the Onomy Reserve and the costs associated with it, led by non-founding contributing entities and validators?

Yes but one caveat - as long as we follow radical transparency methodology and have independent auditors involved - I still have trust issues with how things were hidden from view because the community needed protection or that things could be fixed with a little more time if we can keep things under lock and key.

A DAO must operate in a liquid democratic meritocracy mindset, (quite a mouthful) as such by definition it is not afraid of the chaotic town square and/ or public debate and constant reporting to the community to achieve radical transparency with no regard for price, If issues arise that threaten the DAO they need to be attacked quickly. Being a slave to price will destroy a DAOs morals and ethics. Just my 2 noms

  1. Are you willing to support the founding team with NOM grants (based on subsequent milestone-based DAO funding requests) to maintain the front-end, conduct business development, design products, acquire new users, whilst managing the relationships with the other contributing entities?

100X (or 10000%)

This has always been Onomy’s strength it is an almost impeccable record of deal making at every level when we align the technical design and delivery of core components of the tech stack with everything else it will be a road to Valhalla via andromeda galaxy :wink:

  1. Which of the three options presented to mitigate the Aionic System risks are you most happy with? The options are:

A) Return 50% to treasury & vest rest

I’m not comfortable asking for peoples assets back once given, this claw back concept in society is underpinning its collapse. As a libertarian this is the whole reason I am here I like free speech and even when I don’t like what people say, I will protect their rights to say it.

Having said that it is up to Charles to agree to any demands by a kangaroo court and paying back everything received to date to the DAO is a good start( I believe he has publically made this offer) it would be nice to add some vesting but only if it was agreed upon mutually. I don’t think the DAO has the right to force people to do anything with assets they hold. Ethereum made a grave mistake when it rolled back the DAO hack imho but that’s just me and I am a happy to support the majority just as I am still a supporter of Ethereum today, I am simply stating one man’s opinion.


At this point, it’s clear Aionic needs to go. Maybe they should have gone a long time ago. Maybe - although its unclear on timelines at the moment (and really it’s irrelevant for the most part now anyway) - the Onomy team should have been more forthright about the internal strife and the problems they were having with Aionic. Feels like issues were brewing a long time and the team acted slowly in response. Aionic has not delivered products that are up to scratch. In fact, it seems they’ve actively subverted the community for their own ends.

I’m comfortable with the new proposals set out by the team
C - nuke their involvement


I support this proposal and would prefer we start with my payback of the DAO funds that were given through previous grants.

At that point, I believe I have paid my debt. It is hard in my mind to justify a software upgrade to vest the rest of my holdings and it is unorthodox as DefiNomad admitted.

Ultimately, though, if continued support of Onomy by Lalo and team is in the balance then I will accept either A or B.

I am here to support Onomy and the continued success of the team. I am still here to help if needed as there will be some handover and potential audits of existing code.

1 Like

First of all, thanks for the fast proposal, and I hope going forward will give us a better and more open comunication, I know in this kind of projects is difficult to ventilate bad o incorrect scenarios, but every once in a while, is necessary.

About the questions:
1. Do you agree with the path forward to build out the Onomy Reserve and the costs associated with it, led by non-founding contributing entities and validators?
I agree with this, but $200.000 for a 16 weeks work, needs some kind of validation or open budget audit and plan cost. If the team comits to show cost reports I don’t see any problems in the near future.
2. Are you willing to support the founding team with NOM grants (based on subsequent milestone-based DAO funding requests) to maintain the front-end, conduct business development, design products, acquire new users, whilst managing the relationships with the other contributing entities?
Agree. It allows for flexibility and responsiveness while ensuring alignment with project goals, but in every request the team has to establish a clear criteria for grant approval and transparent reporting mechanisms to track progress.
3. Which of the three options presented to mitigate the Aionic System risks are you most happy with?
A) Return 50% to treasury & vest rest.
I think this is the best approach, but the team need to reach consensus with Charles to ensure alignment and minimize future conflicts. Remember DEXs champion liberty, but they don’t absolve of responsibilities


Oh lord.

Onomy really has been through the wringer hasn’t it. The community is still strong but it does feel like the project needs its product out there by now. It’s FRUSTRATING that charles inability to produce what they said they would has put the entire community in the blender and forcing us into this binds - especially at a time when it feels like the GREATEST strides should be being made.

‘Starting from scratch’ is troubling at a stage where we should be flying. That said, the new proposals seem GOOD, the Agoric IST model is sound. I’m concerned that some of Onomy’s mooted differentiation could get lost as a result, though. 16 weeks is a fast turnaround, yes, but will we not end up in the place again? Aionic’s involvement should be torched. Charles should not profit another cent off Onomy. Failure should never be rewarded.

1 Yes
2 At this point, fine
3 obviously C or worst case A


This proposal direction in achieving the core objectives of onomy vision [IFS] sounds brilliant and i support it.

But i do have question and appreciate if someone from core team or @Lalo can answer this.

IV. The Future of Onomy’s IFS - Building Beyond Reserve

  1. Phasing out of ONEX Chain, ONEX coin, and the Market Module (ONEX logic). Focus all activity on NOM and the Parent Onomy Chain. Upgrade the Cosmos SDK versioning used to the latest, improve block times.

The question from me… "i have no objection on phasing out onex chain/coin, but would like to ask, as myself did invested in onex considering of the old roadmap , so ask is whats the directions for onex stake holders who believed in old roadmap and invested. ?


My opinion will not be much different from others, but I have some questions to understand the further restructuring of Onomy and some of my observations before I write the answers.


  1. If we plan to phase out the Onex network, will we remain ICS in the future or will new products be already on the Onomy network?
  2. Do I understand correctly that we will not have a hybrid exchange for trading, but will have a Swap DEX without an order book?
  3. Do I understand correctly that there will be a Forex market without AMM, but with the help of an order book?

As far as I explain this to myself, these steps were taken to speed up the implementation of the IFS and the Forex market, so as not to initially spend a lot of resources on recreating the ONEX exchange. Which seems quite logical.

As for taking the IST module, I think it’s a great idea to speed up the process of realizing Onomy’s vision and move forward quickly.

Now about the painful part. I am at the crossroads of points A and C. In order to make a fair decision, I believe that it is necessary to consider all the damage that Charles caused and the benefit that he brought or can bring to Onomy. In the restructuring plan, we will abandon ONEX which Charles created, we will not use his development of the reserve module, then what contribution of Charles can we use for Onomy as the founder? As far as I understand, Charles is a good architect, but what of what Charles did will we use in Onomy? As someone who was not involved in the development of Onomy, this is not clear to me and if Charles or the core team could clarify this point, I would appreciate it pushing me closer to point A, otherwise, for the work he did, he has already paid himself a salary and I don’t see the point of leaving him 50% of the tokens, which pushes my choice to point C. Now about the harm to the Onomy project. You can read about this in detail here: Reserve coming soon - #4 by Nomad and I see no point in repeating myself, I think that the harm to the project has been colossal not only at the moment, but also in the last year. I also want to point out how Charles initially submitted the funding request with the emphasis that if you don’t vote for the funding, he will stop coding and shut down the cloud infrastructure, which will impact Onomy, which seems like manipulation. I also consider it a manipulation when Charles did not receive support from the DAO and after that he began to be nice to everyone and say that he would now continue to work for free in order to realize Onomy’s vision (in fact, it looks like he understood that there would be a proposal for restructuring and he was nice to the community so that they choose point A over C). I have some other comments, but they are not so significant, so I will not write about them at the moment.


  1. Yes, but more transparent
  2. Yes, but more transparent
  3. At the moment, I am more inclined to point C instead of A, given the above. If they explain to me the value of Charles as a founder that we have received or can receive, I may change my mind. We can also consider item A, but to leave him a smaller percentage (it all depends on his contribution to Onomy).

Update: Following Charles’ answer, I definitely choose option C.


Starting over is faster and cheaper than trying to rebuild a broken system. Therefore, I fully support this proposal.As for the questions, my clear answers are as follows:
1.I agree
2.Yes, it absolutely should be, but it should be normal, whether it’s step-by-step payments for the work done or vesting for many years)
3.C) Return all to the Treasury(perhaps 1-5 percent maximum 10 as costs for the work that has been done).

P.S I would also like to add that in parallel with the development of the project, it is necessary to interact with the community.because the community was not paid attention to the last year, probably because you said you were doing a project. and many people were waiting for the project, some of them left the project (for them it was just too long), but those who waited for ONEX to launch were disappointed with what they were waiting for and also left the project.
P.S2 If you need help with this,just write!)Nomads POwer!!!


The background on the past week was that I submitted a proposal on the forum. I was then coached by other DAO members to supply documents outlining budget and development plan.

Things were not looking good in the markets at that point, and if my plan did not get support then Onomy needed another one. These attempts to get the other team to work, and work fast have worked despite the wholesale character assassination.

Both founders are responsible for where we are at today regardless of who controls the X account. It’s easy to blame the founder that can code when you lose key developers due to funding constraints.


Looks clear that others left because you were cursing at them and refused to work with them. There’s proof shown so not sure what you’re trying to get at. Accept and move on and let the builders built without hurting the project.

What’s most important is that onomy needs a path forward and there seems consensus on what that is.

1 Like

The proposal is very good and very well worked out. However, I think that, if I have not read wrong, there is nothing in terms of marketing to encourage the market to know a more positive point of view after all this. Like more activity on social networks. Correct me if I am wrong.

The plan at a technical level is fine if you understand it. But at a user level or a non-technical level, more feedback will be needed to understand it for the future. That’s where insistence from social networks is necessary. Contacting different people with large communities to promote funding for the token… etc. not for the price of the token but to further expand the desire to rebuild the project.

That said, it takes extra effort to regain trust. Tweeting progress is a must, but being persistent, creating videos like the one that exists from the beginning, doing interviews (even if they last only a few minutes) discussing the idea of development. I’m sorry to say it so bluntly, but we have to be more insistent than the marketing of a meme coin.

  • Do you agree with the path forward to build out the Onomy Reserve and the costs associated with it, led by non-founding contributing entities and validators?
    -Yes but we need more transparency
  • Are you willing to support the founding team with NOM grants (based on subsequent milestone-based DAO funding requests) to maintain the front-end, conduct business development, design products, acquire new users, whilst managing the relationships with the other contributing entities?
    -Yes but we need results, short term and long term (expected to)
  • Which of the three options presented to mitigate the Aionic System risks are you most happy with? The options are:
  • Is C possible at first? Anyway i think A is enough because Charles didnt accepted C in public.

gm gm. I am in support of the current proposal for a path forward. Onomy’s mission needs to be accomplished, so that means all the products that we have talked about over socials. I think it is interesting timing with the market being the way it is. Warm enough whereby we’re not missing out now by not having all products out, but we will be missing out if we are not set on a specific path forward to push.

I will support this proposal, funding for entities contribiting on non dev access, and as for charles i suggest we go with A just to recognize whatever contribution he did have as a founder. My only hope is that he will not start selling once tokens begin to unlock and follow the nomads will in whatever decision we end up taking.

About ORES: the mechanism design for the peg looks good but we need to get these stablecoins into the hands of as many people and make sure they begin using them with integration into other protocols. I also think the best attractor to use one specific stablecoin is either to be the most trustworthy (which we arent now unfortunately), or to pay yield. Not terra yield haha but yield. something that incentivises people to lock their other (more productive assets) as colleteral. Have we given thought about which assets we want to use as collateral? seems atom is pretty shakey. maybe bitcoin. maybe even other stablecoins if we find an excuse for people tio lock usdt to use onomyUSD for example? just 3 cents.

thank you!

1 Like

Good answer, thanks.

Your answer touches on marketing both before this case and your vision of marketing after if we go down the path of restructuring. Regarding your idea for “after” marketing, I agree that the emphasis should be on openness and progress + explaining complex things in simple terms. We will see how the team will cope with this “after”; I don’t want to look into the future.

Now let’s talk about marketing in the past. I am one of those people who also criticized marketing and saw dissatisfaction from other participants who also criticized marketing. One of my misunderstandings was the lack of regular partnerships, insufficient interaction with existing participants and most importantly, “much said - little done.” The point is that when a project talks a lot about innovative products and then doesn’t release that product for a long time or releases a product that doesn’t live up to expectations, then the marketing backfires because people are disappointed and their expectations weren’t met. While here, I justified the long technical development by the fact that this is a difficult task and everything does not happen so quickly, but the problem turned out to be something else, namely the technical director (again I will not write why this is so, a lot has already been written about this) and then everything fell into place. Agree, it’s difficult to enter into partnerships or interact with the community when you promised a lot and now don’t deliver, and the reason for all this is “technical development”. The reality is that we are not a meme project that can become successful only thanks to marketing and a beautiful name, but we are a technological project and the entire success of NOM (including marketing) is tied to the products that Onomy produces and if they don’t exist or they don’t meet expectations - there will be no success.

This does not relate specifically to your answer, I just want to point out one point. After my previous message, I sincerely wanted to understand Charles’ contribution and his value to Onomy, but Charles responded only with an excuse without specifics and then wrote in a telegram “Just letting the community know that I am ready to accept options A or B without a fight if @Laloquidity and team continue to support the project.” I think this is not acceptable, instead of some specifics, we have what we have and I don’t see that he is interested in the project.

It is after this point that I definitely choose point C (I hope there are ways to do this).

1 Like

Everything you say is reasonable and understandable. The point is that you don’t have to promise what you can’t foresee, but rather focus on what is currently developing. What is known will exist and function. Taking this into account, the best approach would be to increase activity on social networks, starting with platform X. Sometimes, you don’t need to promise anything; just encourage the community. What is unacceptable is that other, less interesting projects have better publicity.

This is all I can discuss, given my lack of technical knowledge to provide a serious opinion on the new changes. I’m happy with the response, but they need to do better than before. If a 16-week period of silence begins, we will not see the project completed.

Regarding options A, B, and C, I sincerely think that they should explain more about how these will be implemented to avoid greater issues.

1 Like

I think it is a very good proposal. I hope it will reach the public and increase the price of our currency. it is certain that it is a pivotal moment for onomy and if we want it to be successful, we all have to do our job. how can we help the team? charles must retire gracefully, I’m glad to see that he is willing to put up with whatever we choose.

however, how long will it last? and how good will it be?

1 Like

I want to touch on the power of the DAO and its purpose for the blockchain. I’m interested in your answer and have been thinking about it for a while. In fact, we are shareholders of Onomy and having a share in Onomy we are in one way or another interested in its success. It is difficult to disagree that cryptocurrency was created for independence and complete control over funds, so it is wrong to interfere with these principles. But shouldn’t we put the power of the DAO above these principles? In fact, if the DAO votes “yes”, it can even suspend (close) the blockchain, simply because the majority wanted to do it and they can do it with a majority vote, then what kind of independence are we talking about if absolutely everyone can lose their funds in the blockchain if Is that what the DAO will decide? I believe that the responsibility of a DAO is not only to make decisions about funding, updating the chain, but also to take the responsibility to intervene in the blockchain to fix a critical problem if it will benefit the blockchain. In addition, do not forget that changes in the blockchain occur when the majority votes “yes”.

To summarize: Since proposals are passed by a majority of votes (rather than one or a few people), the DAO controls the fate of the blockchain, so it is okay to interfere with the functioning of the blockchain and the power of the DAO must be greater than the principles of the blockchain if this decision is to benefit the blockchain.

1 Like

Q1 - I am in agreement with the way forward as proposed in MOGA, but would want to see a detailed budget for the$200,000 in work and want to know the Treasury / DAO holdings and budget.

Q2 - I am in favor of supporting the “Team” moving forward (excluding AS) with reasonable and transparent requests.

Q3 - I think I am missing a lot of information on the liquidation by AS to date, but it seems highly excessive from what I have been able to piece together. Based on this information, I would go with option C and completely sever ties.