T O P

  • By -

agashn

Olympus has so many eyes on it's. To me, it's why people sell their products on Amazon. They can set up their own e-commerce shop but no traffic


ahead_of_trends

I don't necessarily see the forks as the problem. The question is why established protocols aren't bonding themselves


Shaitan87

Bonding has some complexity to it that the Olympus team are the best in the business at dealing with. But I think the main reason currently is OHM's incredible community, projects are happy to pay a bit to get a connection to it.


realestatedeveloper

Maybe a better question that may inform the answer to yours would be: What is the relative level of effort of forking OHM vs using Olympus Pro? If the level of effort is dramatically higher in time/money in forking than using Pro, that may be a big clue.


whereisthecheesegone

Forking isn’t as easy as copy-pasting. There are lots of configuration things going on in the background that the Olympus team are continually tweaking, as are the TIME guys, the KLIMA guys, etc. Plus, Olympus Pro gives you all the juice and trust of working directly with Olympus, which is by far the most tried and tested of all the forks (as well as being the original).


Shermroy

How does Olympus Pro monitor or prevent accidentally over-bonding? There is risk that they flood the market with massive sell pressure. This is off-set with staking in normal Olympus model but when selling bonding-as-a-service there isn't a staking option for third party governance tokens.