OIP-80: Tender Offer Framework

Would we be able to extend the Tender Offer Framework for offers for mergers and acquisitions whereby the Treasury and forks arent the only target use, am exploring the possibility for an acquisition for a synthetic framework and oracle framework that would be able to leverage Olympus native and treasury tokens and infrastructure to back arbitrary Synthetic Assets. But under the current spec only forks for treasury balances are able to be done, not generally productive m&a.

Would it be possibly for there to be a vesting period for individuals who arrive from the forks say 7-14 days? I feel as if this would be beneficial and possibly curb some immediate sell off. It would allow new members to join and discuss within the discord and become more educated about OHM before deciding to sell

Triton Maybe a graduated vesting, 25% a week or something?

IrohC137 Genuine question, does it truly matter if their protocol is close to collapse? In this case, our primary goal is to ingest their treasury assets and community, if they wish to join us. If the protocol collapses, their treasury assets should still remain just as valuable as they would previously, no?

I know there are several true (3,3) types who don't keep up who would be adversely affected for no (in my opinion) viable reason. The number of folks who even up until the recent migration hadn't moved off of the old sOHM V1 contracts from May astounded me.

I like wanderingkevins idea that dev grants should be vested, but don't see a need to make community beat who cares if they sell we're buying discounted assets. The faster those that don't want to be part of the community get to leave the better.

Don't think we should put too much effort into controlling short term price fluctuations. Does it really help OHM if they all dump after 7 or 14 days?

This sounds like a merger and acquisition play. In that case, is the goal of this proposal to ask for permission from the community to participate in M&A? I also think this should be project specific, why ask for blanket approval without a specific project in mind? Also, what would be the incentive for the project to get absorbed if indeed they are trading below their treasury backing? Why wouldn't they just wait out the bad market conditions to get back on track? Am i missing something? Forever (3,3), In OHM We Trust

mysselium33 in favor. imo, this is more a way out for the devs/people working on a struggling project (vs. token holders). It allows them a graceful way out of their situation, and potentially an opportunity to put their ideas to work in a larger, more stable platform.

SMARF

No I think you're correct, even as I wrote that I did feel the 'collapse' part of it wasn't crucial.

But it does seem clear to me that there is a time value to money. If OHM gets X return on assets it's clearly better for OHM to get paid today, and next month is better than next year.

Im not trying to punish stragglers, but from a purely financial perspective an option that expires in 3 months is different than one that expires in 12. And from a behavioral perspective we want to incentivize earlier swaps.

But i agree that this shouldn't be punitive or excessive

mysselium33 this is the most interesting OIP to date. For it.

I would only vote to approve if the Tender Price is denominated in gohm, so our DAO does not invest stablecoins on bailing out a failed token.

Purchase of below-cost forks

↓

Residents of forked tokens that have regained value will be the first to sell.

Isn't that what happened?

While most will probably just dump the token my biggest concern are the ones that hold.

I personally love our cohmunity and bringing the apy chasers into our hOHM does come with some risks.

Interesting proposal, Tarun mentioned Dao M&A picking up speed in 2022 on a podcast recently. Big fan of developer grants in this framework!

jyh5664 Also I would consider proposing to only aquire the ammount of DAI or other over collaterized assets in the rescue mission. And that the team be DOXXED if they were to be awarded a grant.

I humbly suggest the OIP should be first focused on establishing the framework which will be used to evaluate potential M&A targets and the criteria that must be met in order for the "core/deal" team to move forward with more formal negotiations with the potential target. The community can then vote on whether it is comfortable allowing the core/deal team freedom to operate according to such a framework.

Further I would suggest that before asking the community to approve the legal form of a tender offer, the offer document should be reviewed by an attorney experienced in crypto/web 3 and IRL M&A. Once such a review has been completed the community can feel comfortable with the scope and content of the tender offer template and can then offer whatever other feedback it so desires.

Thanks Mysselium! Very excited to see this come together.

I want to reiterate that each offer still needs to go to an Olympus community vote, even after this OIP-80 would pass.

cryptogoliath 100%

Buying assets below fundamental value sounds good to me.
Should this be contingent on Olympus receiving a certain level of control over the backing assets of the fork?

If we cannot access/control their supposed backing, what good is holding the fork tokens ?

If no control, does this not leave open the potential for double rug: loss of backing, and loss of gOHM ?