What happened?
There is still a OSMO/USDT market on Binance which is better used.
OSMO/USDT has a volume of $1211k
OSMO/BTC has a volume of $23k
However, I still have the opinion to know at least for a little bit what has been done with the funds. Although the value has tanked from the original $10 million or so to âjustâ $3.5 million, it is still a tremendous amount of money which we have absolutely no communication about.
I have seen more fuss about smaller spends in the past, so it is quite remarkable that for this spend there is not so much being talked about.
@RoboMcGobo can you share some insights?
2 Likes
Yeah as @LeonoorsCryptoman mentioned, the OSMO / USDT market is the preferred market for OSMO on Binance. The BTC market was shut down presumably due to lack of interest / volume.
1 Like
Also any more insights in the market making in general?
âHowever, I still have the opinion to know at least for a little bit what has been done with the funds. Although the value has tanked from the original $10 million or so to âjustâ $3.5 million, it is still a tremendous amount of money which we have absolutely no communication about.â
Since we are up to shaking the trees left and right (looking at SAIL for example), I also want to shake the tree on this one.
I did some digging of the spending of the receiving address of the 7M OSMO from the proposal and I really didnât like the results. The spends are insane for the amount of work seemingly done, especially for some receiving addresses.
The spends for salaries:
We have managed to spend more than 500k USDC(!!!) and 244k OSMO(!!!) over the course of a mere 6 months? With some addresses seemingly receiving more than 60k USDC as salaries? Come on⌠what are we doing here?
Just like the multisig addresses who seem to earn more than 6k USDC for signing like 15 transactions or so. Of which 6 transactions are the payments itself (so that is 40% of the work signing transactions paying yourself?).
The actual âvalue addingâ transactions are not much:
Of these, just 4 contains a memo, which seem like transactions going to an exchange. The rest is not known for its purpose.
I do think we really need to take a thorough look at this initiative as well, because for me the spends do not add up to the seemingly added value.
3 Likes
Hey Leo!
Weâre due to release our semi-annual report soon which can provode general updates on flow of funds broken down by spending category, etc, but given a lot of this detail has been released as part of our batch announcements, it seems like you might be looking for something more specific?
Can you give me some details on what youâre hoping to get more info on so that we can work it into the report?
I am for sure looking on how much is spend on salaries from which addresses, how the funds management is done, etc.
I mean, 2 things might be at play here:
- payments are done from 2 addresses to parties. In that case we spend already $500k+ USDC and 240k+ OSMO from the Market Making funds on salaries, but we are blind on what we get for it
- payments are done for the OGP from the Market Making address. This is a major oversight and anyone working in finance knows that you never ever mingle funds which are earmarked for a certain purpose
So either we spend a crazy amount of money on salaries which worries me OR there is a basic knowledge of financial management missing, which also worries me.
(Iâve got experience with crypto regulations, privacy regulations, and a basic level of financial management and more so I have a rough idea what I am talking about 
)
Disclaimer: I donât want to make this a personal vendetta and there is certainly no need for personal attacks. So for everyone reading this, keep eyes on the process, not on the persons. If we need to talk about potential conflicts of interest, then we can do so in a separate thread to find solutions to (finally) create exclusivity for participants of programs run under the flag of Osmosis.
1 Like
Ah, so I think there might be a bit of misunderstanding here.
As outlined in the original proposal, the market making funds were sent to the OGP multisig address, as it was determined that the OGP would be the most ideal custodian of these funds. So the funding in that wallet contains both the MM OSMO as well as the OGPâs treasury.
Youâre seeing transactions that coincide with distributions of funds to market makers, as well as the OGPâs regular operations (including salaries, grant distributions, etc).
In case itâs not clear, no funds allocated for market making have been used for anything other than distributing to market makers, nor will they be.
I donât see an issue with the OGP treasury being in the same wallet as the mm funds because:
- This is what governance approved / mandated
- Itâs operationally much more efficient
- We donât count these funds as part of our treasury when accounting to ensure theyâre not spent on anything other than market making.
I hope this is helpful. Happy to provide specific hashes for mm transactions when iâm back at a computer if it would help shed more light on things.
But this address wasnât activated on chain before december 2023. The OGP is already active for way longer, so it is kinda weird to start with another wallet during a running period of the OGP when a new period is started. I do see that prop #711 for the renewal of the OGP period was also using the same address.
It was always âdonât trust, verifyâ which is virtually impossible for anyone (both externally as internally) to do when funds are mingled. I have done my fair share of blockchain detective work, so I know how hard that is.
I also know that (just to mention an extreme) for example the UN requires that literally every eurocent of donations should be 100% traceable from donation to spending result. Not saying that we should strive for the same level here, but some basic financial accounting and separation of budgets would be at least a best practice.
Yeah, unfortunately the Cosmos SDK doesnât support native key rotation, so every time you change multisig signers (as was done in december with the new iteration of the OGP), you have to create an entirely new multisig. Itâs unfortunately a technical constraint.
1 Like
Point taken 
Funds separation still stands though. Convenience should never ever be the driving force of making choices if it sacrifices basic best practices.
EDIT: I just learned through a very helpful tip of @RealVovochka that there is even a monthly payment for doing the necessary accounting work >.<
I also did not thoroughly check the party at the time of the proposal to be honest. But the website looks like sh*t and they state âLemma was founded by CPAs from senior roles at the Big 4, to ensure accountability and reliability are never in question with your DAO â including with your finances. Lemma has partnered with many of the most reputable financial administrators in the space and can provide introductions should the DAO or Foundation seek to outsource recording of financial transactions.â
And then to see this basic error⌠urges me to also step up my own game and make sure the check from my side is also done better next time. The fact that we are in crypto doesnât mean we need to make the same mistakes as the web2 world already has done. We need to take best practices if we can and improve where needed. Reinventing the wheel is just unnecessary and a waste of time.
This begs the question, why still use the native signer? Security concerns?
DAODAO, Apollo and Enterprise are all available as alternatives right?
The pattern of payments here looked like grants/market maker payments in the bottom half and the top half being the salaries that were identified here: Osmosis Grants Program v3 Renewal
which matches up with Roboâs description.
With some better multisig tooling (Sorry, DAODAO maxi here) things like the Salary budget and the Market Maker budget could be easily split into linked subDAOs of the OGP and kept totally separate while transparency would be improved by description in the proposal votes themselves.
Some of the figures from the salaries donât match up fully on the spreadsheet? 1500 instead of 750, 4000 dropping to 3000 for the last few months, but up to 7000 on one address, and 8333 instead of 8000 for what I assume is Reverie.
Would you mind posting the actual blocks here @LeonoorsCryptoman? Itâs a bit cut off and not sure if thatâs the extraction error or there were double payments for a bit for some reason.
this cant be Reverie or itâs a double payment because Reverie is getting their ~8kish payment from eth multisig
and btw Lemma solutions is paid 4k and not 2k like mentioned in this picture
1 Like
Yeah, we have alternatives so reverting to tools which are limited in use is a choice I canât understand. Especially if you pay a company handsome money who have âknowledge in the financial worldâ the story becomes even weirder. I am not vetted in the financial world, and even then the basic rule of segregation of funds is known to me. So for Lemma it should be second nature, but for some weird reason they get 2k from the OGP each month but fail to deliver on basics.
Yeah, the variance in payments also threw me off, but I canât change them for the better if this is what the blockchain shows me. So the payments are kinda weird. Also here I am very curious what is happening, since it doesnât add up with the proposal passed earlier.
Block headers in question:
FFD32217D5F79CA4B9C472AF17F6279924AE9B5967F401DDFA3B2D34BEF1735E
28FA4C0AC30812335CD9B070E1232F5EB35F26B43FC1B61E4758585AC0758F28
B34E1867259FF09F0E171669AAE3BFBE78C8B62554B380ED41E9F02687F6879F
BCF3433744306FDA85F1077C8B214BBE58BCFE1A2F81F9379F608C68006E1932
51464A4FC28E739DC80571A3FDD83265689F9271D37ACE62D9C618216237DFB9
2E0CC5C303C4269889089AF1B48BF1568FE4C894C6A29EE791D2B481D9B9D63D
Yeah. I didnât take the dYdX Grant Program into account as well.
Which makes me wonder; the apparent double payments for the multi-sig accounts (the $1500 payments in the earlier blocks), might they also be combined payments from dYdX AND OGP? If that is the case, then it becomes even worse, because then Lemma is mingling funds from 2 different projects. If that is the case, then I would surely try to get the funds back from Lemma, since if that is the case we are looking at not even oversight, but financial mismanagement.
2 Likes
dydx is a different story. OGP is paying Lemma 4k. the tx in my previous post is the payment to Reverie and Lemma
Interesting
Also interesting to get this sorted out
Looking forward to this, because I must say Iâm not happy with what Iâve seen!
I would like to know what are Osmosis Market Makers doing, cause on Binance Iâve placed orders that got filled for 60-70% plenty of times and were never filled 100% in the next few minutes even if the spread was only 0.0001 USDT. Terrible service I must say.
How much are we paying for it again?
In the report I would like to see most numbers possible, like number of orders placed & served, graph of the observed spread, of trading gains & losses, and some specific metric to measure the distribution in the book that I donât know cause Iâm not an expert about market makers, but I guess who engaged with these suppliers must be (right?!) 
The most important part is knowing how much they got paid explicitly, and how much they extracted from the market (if they did, for sure they shouldnât make trading profits, but how to proove?).
1 Like
Wow, are those monthly?
750$/month just for holding funds & signing (how many) txs?! Seriously.
Please donât make me sell the bottomâŚ
Serious restructuring is needed. Do we have someone already on payroll who is incentived to do it?!
I guess Iâll have to comment on that other topicâŚ
1 Like
roughly 2 tx per month. The cost is around $2K per tx. But maybe itâs incorrect metric cause these people are securing the funds.
1 Like
And not to forget that 1 tx is most likely the payments to themselves >.<
So the payment is for just 1 tx which might add valueâŚ
Which means this is grossly overspend.