[OGN / OUSD] MIP6 Collateral Onboarding Application - Origin Protocol & Origin Dollar

  1. Who is the interested party for this collateral application?

The Origin Protocol Foundation, a Singapore non-profit company limited by guarantee.

  1. Provide a brief high-level overview of the project, with a focus on the applying collateral token.

Origin Protocol has two flagship products: Origin Dollar (OUSD) and Origin Story. OUSD is a yield-aggregating stablecoin with that rebases positively to distribute yield directly to user wallets in the form of additional units of OUSD. OUSD is backed 1-to-1 by DAI, USDC, and/or USDT. These underlying stablecoins are deposited on Compound, Aave, Curve/Convex to earn yield on behalf of OUSD holders. Origin Story is a full-service NFT platform and launchpad. Origin has hosted some of the largest primary sales in history, including a $11.7m sale by 3LAU which is the largest music NFT sale to date.

Origin would like to apply both OUSD and OGN (Origin’s governance token) as collateral tokens for minting DAI. We recognize the work associated with bringing new vaults online and want to make a public commitment that we will help promote them to the millions of people in our community and make sure they are properly utilized and driving value to Maker. If this proposal is accepted we are willing to commit to deposit $50m in OGN, $25m in OUSD and $25m in ETH for a minimum of 1 year. In addition to this $100m of committed capital, multiple early team members and other large OGN holders have expressed interest in seeing OGN supported on Maker and are likely to deposit tens of millions in additional capital. We would suggest a collateral factor of 150% for OGN and 125% for OUSD. Both OGN and OUSD have hundreds of millions of dollars in circulating supply with deep liquidity on both decentralized and centralized exchanges.

  1. Provide a brief history of the project.

Origin was founded in mid-2017 by Matthew Liu and Joshua Fraser in San Francisco. They were soon joined by Yu Pan who was one of the co-founders of PayPal and the first engineer at YouTube. Origin maintains a distributed team of 30+ individuals around the world. Origin conducted token sales in 2017 and 2018, raising $38.1M, led by Pantera Capital with participation from Foundation Capital, Kyber, Blockchain.com, QCP Capital, and Alexis Ohanian (co-founder, Reddit), Steve Chen (founder, YouTube), and Garry Tan (partner, Y Combinator).

Origin launched a marketplace protocol on Ethereum mainnet in 2018. In 2019, Origin launched DAI as the first stablecoin integration on its platform (https://medium.com/originprotocol/pay-with-dai-on-origin-announcing-our-first-stablecoin-integration-43f86d5d7982). Origin also launched a decentralized ecommerce platform called Dshop (Origin Protocol - DShop) built on the marketplace protocol. Dshop powered the MakerDAO merch store at that time.

In late 2020, Origin launched Origin Dollar (OUSD) with DAI as one of the collateral/backing tokens. In 2021, Origin launched Origin Story and its first ever primary sales or auctions of NFT drops. OUSD was further integrated across DeFi with a liquidity mining campaign and Curve gauge. The OUSD-3Crv pool was also listed on Convex and other platforms.

  1. Link the whitepaper, documentation portals, and source code for the system(s) that interact with the proposed collateral, and all relevant Ethereum addresses. If the system is complex, schematic(s) are especially appreciated.

Whitepaper: Origin Protocol - Litepaper
OUSD Docs: https://docs.ousd.com
Source Code: Origin Protocol · GitHub
Governance: https://vote.originprotocol.com

OGN smart contract:
0x8207c1FfC5B6804F6024322CcF34F29c3541Ae26
origintoken.eth

OUSD smart contract:
0x2A8e1E676Ec238d8A992307B495b45B3fEAa5e86
ousd.eth

  1. Link any available audits of the project. Both procedural and smart contract focused audits.

Origin and OUSD have undergone multiple security audits by Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, Solidified, and Certora.

  1. Link to any active communities relating to your project.
  1. How is the applying collateral type currently used?

OGN is the governance token for Origin Protocol and its products. OGN can also be staked on the Origin platform or on various exchanges.

OUSD is a stablecoin that accrues yield directly to user wallets.

  1. Does one organization bear legal responsibility for the collateral? What jurisdiction does that organization reside in?

OGN was issued by Origin Protocol Labs, a Cayman Islands company.

OUSD is solely issued by a smart contract and no OUSD was offered in any pre-sales or fundraising campaigns.

  1. Where does exchange for the asset occur?

OGN: Uniswap, Sushiswap, Coinbase, Binance, Huobi, Upbit, Kraken, KuCoin, Crypto.com, Blockchain.com, and more

OUSD: Curve, Uniswap, Sushiswap, KuCoin, VirgoX

  1. (Optional) Has your project obtained any legal opinions or memoranda regarding the regulatory standing of the token or an explanation of the same from the perspective of any jurisdiction? If so, those materials should be provided for community review.

Yes, we have multiple legal opinions from multiple jurisdictions that have all taken a favorable view on the regulatory standing of our tokens. However, we were advised not to make these publicly available by our counsel. We are happy to share them with the Maker team in private.

  1. (Optional) Describe whether there are any regulatory registrations for the token and provide related documentation (including an explanation of any past or existing interactions with any regulatory authorities, regardless of jurisdiction), if applicable.

We have never been contacted by the SEC or any other regulatory authority regarding either OGN or OUSD.

  1. (Optional) List any possible oracle data sources for the proposed Collateral type.

Chainlink maintains an OGN/ETH price feed. We’re in the process of asking Chainlink to set up a new OUSD/USD feed. In the meantime, you may be able to use the USDT/USDC/DAI feeds since OUSD is backed 1:1 by those coins and is always redeemable for those underlying assets.

  1. (Optional) List any parties interested in taking part in liquidations for the proposed Collateral type.

The Origin Protocol Foundation is happy to run bots to help with liquidations. We’ll ask our market maker to help as well.

2 Likes

Hi @coleman.

Thanks for your post. I just wanted to let you know that when we put this proposal up for an on-chain greenlight poll we will need to split it into 2 separate votes: one for OGN and one for OUSD. To be clear, this could result in both, neither, or one of the two coins you have included being greenlit.

Let me know if you have any questions.

1 Like

Hello Coleman, welcome and thank you for posting the Origin/Origin Dollar MIP6 application.

With regards to OUSD liquidity, Having trouble locating liquidity beyond 1M OUSD/DAI, USDC, or even USDT

A little bit of Slippage on Uniswap:

Surely this must be a SushiSwap error, eh?

Also, can you please provide a brief update to what has changed and what improvements have been made since the November 2020 setback Origin incurred? Good to see y’all overcome such at an early stage of DeFi.

Thanks again, and wishing you and Origin all the best!

1 Like

Have you tried Curve? That is where most of the liquidity is since OUSD is a stablecoin: Curve.fi

Since the November 2020 setback, we have made all hack victims more than 100% whole (we rewarded them in OGN which greatly appreciated in price) and we have undergone multiple security audits and completely revamped our engineering and security processes. The security incident occurred before we finished any audits.

You can see the results of the 4 security audits for OUSD that have been completed by Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, Solidified, and Certora here: Audits - OUSD

1 Like

For context on the security incident, there was a prominent disclaimer on the OUSD DApp at the time warning that none of the contracts had been audited. While it was a brutal and expensive lesson for our team, we’re in a far stronger position today as a result of that experience. Here’s a more detailed explanation of everything we changed following the hack:

There’s currently over $410M of liquidity in the OUSD pool which did over $26M in trading volume yesterday.

Honestly find it interesting you would list in order Uniswap and as per @ElProgreso comment on a 1M trade 10% slippage and then what 10 other exchanges - NOT mentioning curve which you mention in response to @ElProgreso point about slippage.

My own research:

  • OGN barely trades 1M/day on Coinbase on average.
  • Fully diluted cap of OGN with 1B issued is 619M. 25k holders
    • 60% of the float is in a single address (360M - 570M tokens)
  • OUSD 271M at time of checking etherscan.io 2509 holders.
    • 80% of the float is in a single address (219M)

While I see a number of exchanges with varying amounts of liquidity I honestly don’t see the environment around OGN or OUSD to be healthy or large enough to support Maker Vaults.

I am mixed about what to say here generally because I am seeing more and more of these MIP6 applications come out of the blue from projects barely 12 months old and with ecosystems that really don’t appear robust or of a size that can support oracle costs. MakerDAO has to consider not just the economics of these propositions (i.e. oracle costs, risk factors, liquidation/keeper liquidity) we also have to consider how much Maker adding a vault lends credibility to these ecosystems.

Speaking for myself I am looking for ecosystems that can present 1B worth of locked TVL of collateral that is well established, with large and growing communities, a good history of reasonably careful and secure steps.

The fact you listed almost 10 exchanges for the asset and left curve out (which is where you suggest the greatest liquidity is) speaks to me that either the proposer doesn’t understand his/her own ecosystem, and/or the ecosystem isn’t mature enough.

My comments aren’t just for the presenter here but MakerDAO in general.

More and more I am wanting to have one or two Maker CUs support a MIP6 as co-authors before these even are allowed to be considered formally in a MIP6 application. Just because some ecosystem comes forward and writes a forum post with a proposal isn’t a valid enough of reason to consider these.

I also believe MakerDAO is rapidly approaching a point that we really need to lay down some reasonable criterion for proposals to meet before we will even consider these. Just because a community says they are willing to throw 10’s of Millions at Maker to basically be able to borrow 10’s of Millions isn’t really an all out justification for why doing this is good for Maker.

Perhaps I am being too much of a gatekeeper here and maybe Maker needs to be more open and I can just ignore MIP6s that are proposed if I find faults. But I feel the communities time is valuable and so we need to be serious about what we do consider, and when something is presented it should be something with a reasonable chance of being successful. Otherwise we waste our precious and limited time as well as others.

2 Likes

Honestly find it interesting you would list in order Uniswap and as per @ElProgreso comment on a 1M trade 10% slippage and then what 10 other exchanges - NOT mentioning curve which you mention in response to @ElProgreso point about slippage.

I listed Uniswap first for OGN. OGN isn’t trading on Curve (yet). The screenshots you are referring to are OUSD trades/slippage on Uniswap, not OGN trades/slippage. I don’t understand why the order in which I list exchanges for tokens is significant, though.

  • OUSD 271M at time of checking etherscan.io 2509 holders.
  • 80% of the float is in a single address (219M)

This single address is the Curve pool for OUSD which demonstrates its deep liquidity and integration into DeFi.

I am mixed about what to say here generally because I am seeing more and more of these MIP6 applications come out of the blue from projects barely 12 months old and with ecosystems that really don’t appear robust or of a size that can support oracle costs.

Origin was founded in mid-2017. We have been working with Maker on various initiatives since 2019 and have a good relationship with their team. We are confident we can support oracle costs.

I also believe MakerDAO is rapidly approaching a point that we really need to lay down some reasonable criterion for proposals to meet before we will even consider these. Just because a community says they are willing to throw 10’s of Millions at Maker to basically be able to borrow 10’s of Millions isn’t really an all out justification for why doing this is good for Maker.
Perhaps I am being too much of a gatekeeper here and maybe Maker needs to be more open and I can just ignore MIP6s that are proposed if I find faults. But I feel the communities time is valuable and so we need to be serious about what we do consider, and when something is presented it should be something with a reasonable chance of being successful. Otherwise we waste our precious and limited time as well as others.

I think you are certainly entitled to your opinion and we welcome constructive criticism. It is possible that it is too early for OGN / OUSD to be listed as collateral on MakerDAO. I would only ask that you read our proposal thoroughly and not make mischaracterizations. I also think it is somewhat unfair to lump this proposal in with other proposals you are angry about.

2 Likes

Because this is an application for both OGN/OUSD - perhaps as suggested you might have broken these into two applications vs. one. OUSD as in your proposal statement is about 12 months old.

OUSD. Yet you did NOT list curve as a place for trading.

You also missed the point here that slippage for OUSD is pretty high in sizable quantities at least on Uniswap and that OUSD is not even 12 months old yet.

If this is in the curve pool then why would this OUSD move to Maker? What this demonstrates is that a huge percentage of OUSD is in a single curve pool - providing this ‘deep trading liquidity’ take that away and you don’t have very deep trading liquidity.

Ok OGN is more than 12 months old, OUSD isn’t. Both are coupled into this single MIP6 proposal. I have been with Maker since 2018 and I have never heard of Origin, not in a single CC nor in forum posts until now. But I am not a CU nor have I spoken with CUs regarding Origin so I wouldn’t know. I am simply going on the proposal details.

lol. The constructive criticism is that in my opinion OGN and OUSD are ecosystems with too low of a Market Cap for Maker to support with vaults. We have other ecosystems with the same or larger caps that we have been offboarding because those ecosystems didn’t use vaults to cover oracle costs.

You write:

It is our job in governance to have reasonable expectations that onboarding a collateral is safe, liquidatable, and will generate sufficient revenue to be profitable for the protocol. For the community and Applicants there should be a reasonable expectation of success with these MIP6 applications.

When honest criticism is characterized as ‘anger’ well then we will have to agree to disagree.

As to lumping. I did no such thing and consider such a statement an extreme characterization.

When dealing with these MIP6 applications I have been consistent about basic issues:

  1. Age and time of collateral existence
  2. Depth of markets
  3. Health of communties using those tokens.
  4. Size of the Market Cap so that there is chance of reasonable return to cover protocol colsts
  5. Characterization of approach to security of their protocols
  6. What the community advertises, and delivers

Often times MIP6 applications fail (in my mind) to satisfy a number of these the prime ones being 4 (too low of a Market Cap), 2 depth of Markets (for liquidators and liquidations), and lately 1 Age and time of collateral existence.

OGN fails 4 and 2 to my mind
OUSD fails 1, 4 and likely 2

The rest I didn’t research because of the flags on cap, age and lack of market depth in places OGN and OUSD trades.

This doesn’t mean OGN or OUSD can’t apply again later or that you don’t have a decent ecosystem just that from my seat neither of these meet my own personal criterion for acceptance of a MIP6 a pplication. You are right I am entitled to my opinion and I will respectfully have to disagree on certain points.

I appreciate the application because I learn at least a bit of the other ecosystems out there and if they grow to substantial size and endure the test of time will be happy to review a future application.

The piece you quoted btw:

was only peripherally meant for the applicant (more as a FYI as to what I believe should be required of proposals) but more to MakerDAO generally as I don’t like to see an applicant like yourself approach the community only to find you have not met ‘at least my own’ criterion and find your application rejected for reason. in this vein I am encouraging MakerDAO to come up with a set of criterion that if passed allow for a MIP6 applicant to have a reasonable chance to succeed in their application because I don’t like to post repeatedly why a MIP6 application fails my own personal tests.

I’m one of the founders of Origin. Let me jump in here to clear up some of the facts as @MakerMan made a number of incorrect assertions. I recognize we probably added to the confusion by not breaking this into two separate proposals. Feedback accepted. Sorry about that.

First, it’s weird for you to keep accusing @coleman of not mentioning Curve when everyone can easily scroll up and see that you’re wrong. In fact, he listed Curve first:

OUSD: Curve, Uniswap, Sushiswap, KuCoin, VirgoX

Concerning your other points:

You also missed the point here that slippage for OUSD is pretty high in sizable quantities at least on Uniswap and that OUSD is not even 12 months old yet.

Who cares that slippage is high on Uniswap and Sushiswap if there is $370M worth of liquidity on Curve? We all know that Curve’s bonding curve and fees are more appropriate for stablecoin trades.

If this is in the curve pool then why would this OUSD move to Maker? What this demonstrates is that a huge percentage of OUSD is in a single curve pool - providing this ‘deep trading liquidity’ take that away and you don’t have very deep trading liquidity.

The vast majority of the liquidity on Curve is being supplied by external OUSD holders, not our treasury. Our promise to move $100M of capital into Maker DAO isn’t dependent on us pulling any funds out of Curve.

I have been with Maker since 2018 and I have never heard of Origin, not in a single CC nor in forum posts until now.

There are a ton of projects in the space, and I don’t blame you for being unaware of Origin. However, our organizations do have a long history of working together and we’re certainly known by other members of your team:

We can’t argue the fact that OUSD is only a year old. How long should we wait? A year is a long time in crypto. Maker itself is only 4 years old. I agree it would be helpful to have some of these unspoken rules codified to help projects better navigate the process without wasting your time.

Again, I’m not sure where the goalposts are for depth of liquidity and market cap, but here are the latest numbers so people can at least make an educated decision when considering our proposal:

OGN

  • Market cap:
    • Circulating: $251,891,869
    • Fully diluted: $648,252,296
  • Liquidity
    • The majority of our trading happens on Binance, but we’re listed on dozens of top exchanges
    • ~$30M / day trading volume
    • $7.69M of liquidity across Sushiswap and Uniswap v2/v3

If this liquidity isn’t sufficient, what’s the target? We can likely add more.

OUSD

  • Market cap: $273,294,979
  • Liquidity:
    • $370M available on Curve
    • Also listed on KuCoin and VirgoX
    • Already integrated with other DeFi giants like Yearn and Convex

We have deep respect for Maker and what you’ve built. We started Origin around the same time as Maker and we’ve been building alongside you in this space ever since. We’re not just another OHM fork that’s been around for 5 minutes and is begging to be added to Maker.

I understand that you’ve been offboarding other projects of similar size because they didn’t use their vaults. That’s why we attached our public commitment to deploy $100M into the vaults. We have every intention of putting them to good use and driving value to Maker in the process.

Thank you @MakerMan for taking the time to engage with our proposal and explain your position. If there are actionable things we can do to make this proposal more appealing, such as adding more liquidity on DEX’s, please let us know. We look forward to hearing from other MKR holders as well.

6 Likes

Hey Josh! Remembering Origin from back in the days when y’all were allowing users to resell merchandise, and even early-stage NFTs–like way back in the days :smiley: ( as you mentioned 1-year in crypto can be an eternity). However, with all that’s occur in crypto since then, I have not followed Origin lately–apologies from my end.

I have a three (3) part question:

  • I was wondering if Yu Pan was still part of the team, and if you can provide his role/involvement?
  • And can you please go over Origin’s Pivot from being a platform that allowed folks to sell goods and it seems as if you are now focus as an NFT launching platform?
  • And last but not least, are you able to provide any growth metrics from say 2020 till now, as well as your roadmap?

Also, wondering if you had any recent talks with the @Growth-Core-Unit on how the deployment of the $100M into Maker vaults would be guaranteed?

Thank you in advanced!

1 Like

Hey @ElProgreso!

Yes, Yu Pan (one of the co-founders of PayPal and the first engineer at YouTube) is still actively working at Origin. He’s currently researching some really cool stuff around GameFi NFTs.

Our initial product which was a decentralized marketplace for anything. We never saw the traction we hoped to achieve. Maybe we were just too early. We’ve always been focused on helping people buy and sell things using crypto, but about a year ago we decided to narrow our focus to things that are native to crypto, namely NFTs and DeFi. That’s when we launched OUSD and started working on our NFT platform.

Here are some of the key accomplishments from just the last year:

  • We’ve seen the circulating supply of OUSD grow from 0 to over 270M
  • We’ve hosted multiple record-breaking NFT sales:
    • Largest music NFT sale with 3LAU that raised $11.7M
    • Largest meme NFT sale with Charlie Bit Me that made headlines around the world
    • Most NFTs sold in a single drop with SpaceX’s Inspiration4 mission, with all of the proceeds going to support St. Jude hospital.
    • Helped sell the most valuable cask of whisky ever with an NFT

I’m publicly stating our guarantee here as one of the cofounders of Origin so you can drag my reputation through the mud if I renege on it. Open to other suggestions if you have them @Growth-Core-Unit.

8 Likes

I had to scroll back and look. Yeah probably a good reason why these shouldn’t have been mixed. Each time I scrolled up to check I would land on OGN vs. OUSD and think why isn’t curve mentioned.

Apologies for missing that and thank you for pointing it out.

I think we kept focusing on Uniswap, when in fact we should have looked at curve at least for OUSD.

I want to say I appreciate you taking time here. These two applications being together I think made it easy to miss stuff.

I think my biggest issue is that I just don’t see that OUSD is really going to add any significant liquidity. Look at it this way. I keep hearing 1 collateral type costing us between .5-1M/yr in oracle fees. With stablecoins Maker is just pegging prices to 1USD which creates significant hazards for the protocol. I see us with GUSD which has a MC of 285M. I don’t think I was hot on GUSD and that vault sits there with only about 5M used earning 50K/yr in fees.

Stablecoins in general end up in a strange state we take on a whole bunch of risk for what 1% or lower fees as a vault. In PSMs we basically earn nothing. I think my point here is that for OUSD to function I see this liquidity being needed on curve and don’t really see that substantial OUSD is going to borrow DAI without hurting the liquidity on curve. Literally to be interesting to Maker (should we ever need to enable oracles) OUSD at 1% is going to have to have 50-100M and that is if oracle costs stay the same.

So lets leave OUSD aside for the moment.

OGN. Again Maker recently has been offboarding collateral types.

Compound 1.883B cap offboarded due to low use.
Aave 2.804B cap offboarded due to low vault use.
Balancer 699M cap offboarded due to low vault use.
Loopring 2.912B cap offboarded due to low vault use.
Basic Attention 1.71B cap offboarded due to low vault use.
ZRX 784M cap offboarded due to low vault use.

I see all of the above as having significantly better token distributions (larger number of holders who might use a vault), a higher market cap to apply and much better markets for liquidation.

I simply do not see that OGN with a circulating MC of 250M and fully diluted at 648M being something that is going to draw significant organic vault use.

I look at these things strictly from a what can I reasonably expect the protocol to earn given the risk parameters and other factors I listed and when I think this is going to be less than potential oracle costs I come to the conclusion Maker should not onboard the collateral. We have bigger fish to fry. My inclination is to let other protocols take on the risk and to spread this risk in their portfolio and to manage DAI liquidity via D3M modules offering DAI into those protocols.

Humor some questions. Which I never see in these MIP6 applications.

Why is having a Maker vault actually preferred than to use over other protocols to borrow DAI?
Exactly how much do you expect your team and your community to use such a vault?
What level of borrowing as a percentage of CAP do you expect to see deposited? Why?
How much in terms of SFs do you expect team/community to pay to borrow? Why?

When I look at why a number of communities might want a large borrowing facility I keep thinking it is a way for communities to effectively sell their tokens in exchange for stablecoins DAI in Makers case). Which means in the end the protocol will end up auctioning these and potentially taking losses. We have seen some hints of this on the tokens we have offloaded recently… It is not entirely clear to me why some of the lesser vaults didn’t auction as well and without a report or data (which may exist I just have not looked deeply into this because it hasn’t been a huge issue - yet) but there is a concern when I see low caps on not so well known Tokens that think they might want significant DC beyond 10-20M.

The above 6 are well known to me, the projects have pretty significant histories and about as deep trading as you can get short of ETH across various CEX, DEXs.

One other point. Maker is looking to grow substantially and it is my view we need to be focusing on the larger players (particularly on Main net). I did not see Maker getting to 1B 1-5M collateral type at a time, nor do I see a practical path for Maker to get to 100B-1T even with 100-500M at a time.

Now I think there will be much more opportunity on L2s to be able to look at growing with smaller players there, but the governance overhead to deal with 5,10,20,50,100M in collateral one at a time to manage by MakerDAO just isn’t going to be practical.

At this point I’d like to hear from one or more CUs or other delegates. My inclination is to not support either of these applications but I am willing to hear cogent arguments either way at this point.

Thank you @joshfraser for chiming in to engage to answer questions, clarify positions. I appreciate the $100M commitment and would echo @ElProgreso on:

Thank you again!

1 Like

Have you considered switching to Chainlink for your oracle system? We already sponsor their ETH/OGN feed if you can just use that. The OUSD/DAI oracle should be cheap to run since they both track $1. If the oracles are really the blocker, we’re happy to discuss sponsoring them for you.

I understand your concern that these vaults won’t be used enough. That’s why we included our $100M commitment.

I envision there being high demand for both vaults. For example, I have personally never sold a single token of my OGN, but I would very much appreciate the ability to borrow against my holdings. An OUSD vault would enable leverage since OUSD can be minted with DAI. This would attract a lot of usage (and fees) as there is near infinite demand for low-risk/high-yield earning opportunities using stables.

1 Like

Hi @Patrick_J

I see OGN and OUSD have been queued for a greenlight poll and I have been checking the collateral status overview thread every Monday. What are the next steps for OGN / OUSD and do you know when the polls will go live?

Thank you for all your help.

1 Like

Hi Coleman,

The polls should be going up on Monday the 10th, barring any unforeseen circumstances.

There’s been a break in the Governance Cycle over the Christmas period but we are starting to ramp back up again now.

1 Like

I think it’s fantastic that Origin Protocol is engaging in-depth with Maker and committing to $100M, but understand the concerns from the delegates about liquidity and costs/profitability.

This is a separate conversation, but it may be wise to consider leveraging Chainlink oracles for smaller collaterals in these situations. As @joshfraser has pointed out, this oracle already exists, and I don’t think it’s a heavy lift to use their price feeds (but the relevant CUs can clarify). Aside from security, which I believe Chainlink has proven itself on that front, what are some other reasons not to do this if oracle costs are the primary deterrence?

1 Like

Now that OGN has passed the community greenlight poll, we would like to be as co-operative as possible during the domain work process. We can share legal opinions, audits, and anything else that will help.

I am on telegram @coleman415 or email [email protected]

cc @Patrick_J

Hi Coleman,

@collateral-core-unit are probably the best people to speak to for the next stage of the onboarding process.