Regarding OSL Funding:
I believe now would be a good time to also discuss HOW we fund the OSL and the amount of fiscal autonomy we give them. How they are funded, and how they are allowed to manage their funds, can not only increase accountability and transparency, but also ensure operations are sustainable.
Dedicated Revenue Stream for Specific Operations - Just as many government operations are primarily funded by service fees and special use taxes rather than through general appropriations (eg. the US federal gas tax funds maintenance of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, FAA and TSA airport operations are funded via passenger fees airlines have passed on to their customers, etc), certain fees should be fully or partially dedicated to funding specific OSL operations. For example, rather than depositing pool and gauge creation fees into the community pool, they can directed to a separate account to fund specific OSL operations/budget line items, such as bot maintenance and hosting, relayer, and RPC node operations, for example. The OSL would pay for these operations solely from the account that collects pool and gauge creation fees, and if a sufficient amount of revenue isn’t generated to cover those operations, ask that Governance increase the fee amount.
Dedicating certain revenue streams to cover certain line item costs, would provide a funding base for certain key OSL operations going forward. Transparency is increased when the revenue of certain fees are dedicated to fund certain operations, it would be clear how much OSMO is being converted to USDC to cover these specific costs. Accountability is also increased as the quality and quantity of operations funded through these sources are dependent upon the revenue generated by the fees or any supplemental funding from the Community Pool.
ProtoReve USDC Revenue - Replacing a portion of OSL OSMO funding with USDC ProtoRev revenue (and in the future taker fee revenue rather than distributing it to stakers, which they can be compensated for with 100% of other non-OSMO token revenue) to specifically cover certain costs of OSL operations would be significantly more efficient than continuing to fund their operations completely in OSMO.
Interest on Contingency Fund - Governance could provide the OSL with the authority to manage their funds in a manner that can produce savings. For example, the OSL could be allowed to deposit a portion of their contingency fund on Mars or Umee to earn some interest. The interest earned would reduce the amount of OSMO that is needed to replenish it and an ‘profits’ can be used to fund operations. Likewise, Governance could allow OSL to permanently hold a portion of their contingency fund in stablecoins on Mars and or Umee to reduce any future Community Pool spending to replenish it and any profits used to cover operations.
Regarding OSL Funding Services/Operations:
Information as a Service - I have heard Sunny say numerous times that Osmosis wishes to be the DEX that offers users the same features as a CEXs, and I have always though that OSL was in a position to help Osmosis achieve this by replicating many of the same ‘information as service’ features that CEXs and even traditional brokerage firms offers to their users. While the value of ‘information as service’ is often difficult to quantify, there is undoubtedly a reason why CEXs and traditional brokerage firms continue to fund these services and provide many of them to users free of charge. In fact, several qualitative studies have found that such ‘information as service’ is just as important to traditional retail traders and investors when selecting a brokerage or asset management firm as trading fees or costs are (largely in part due to firms having to compete on costs thanks to Vanguard)
The OSL could provide much more value to users by expanding their ‘information as service’ operations through weekly (or even daily) blog posts and establish the Community Updates blog as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for new and noteworthy blog posts and tweets from different ecosystem chains, dapps, organizations validators, developers and quality content (those that both challenge and reinforce our own personal opinions and beliefs) from various industry information outlets, commentators, analysts, and experts. A lot more could be done to make it easier for users to keep up to date on the activities of other ecosystem chains, market events, and industry issues, RealClearMarkets (https://www.realclearmarkets.com/) is a low-cost model I believe the OSL could easily replicate.
Serving the Interest of all Community Members - As an organization funded by the community, I have long believed that the OSL could do more to serve the interests of ALL community members by collating high quality and trusted educational sources on trading and investing. The OSL also doesn’t have to create its own content on things such as impermanent loss, APY vs APR, token inflation, etc, and could easily steer users to sources that already have created such educational material.