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

          Interesting proposal. I’ve thought about the opportunities to expand and think this could be a very interesting play.

          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.

                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 ?

                  bubbidubb Agree in the case of trust they should trust us not the other way around

                    I've 2 concerns, what kind of treasury of those struggling communities we would acquire? Not sure about their treasury's consistence but no matter how we need to keep our treasury coins at least risk.

                    Second concern is about those communities. Worrying that their investment vision is different from us (I suppose who willing to join forks may be short term profit lover). When their dying assets are changed to gOhm, will they make a big sell on gOhm and impact our community? We have seen what happened in Olympus in January, just one whale selling hit us seriously. How do we gonna prevent from such case happening again?

                      One more thing, I think this proposal contains a big thing. Only a proposal is not enough to get the most opinions. I suggest to take it a project and make more clear, step by step process. This sounds like some acquiring. In business, good acquiring can make huge success, but bad decision also can kill a company.

                      Would a rage quit option be available to fork community members that are not happy with a merger with Olympus and are just going to dump the gOHM onto the market? Perhaps these people could simply be paid out of the treasury and save us some price volatility?

                        I like this idea - but I also think if any project is accepted, Olympus should become majority signer on Multisig of the projects Treasury (unless they have already achieved full on-chain governance).

                        Edit: Also, how does this work for projects who hold OHM in their treasury? We don't want a situation where we end up backing OHM with OHM…

                          This is what I like to see, we are going into the right direction. I am in favour of this proposal.

                          Just to be clear and there is no confusion, when a deal closes and the TO Contract interacts with the Olympus treasury. Will new fresh OHM be minted against the TO Contract? For example 50 DAI in TO Contract value will print 50 OHM?

                          mysselium33 We determine it would be profitable for Olympus (and otherwise advisable) to make a proposal, consistent with the template below.

                          I like how the the team is thinking of current investors of Olympus. That said, it is hard sometimes to make a profitable acquisition. Usually, inn real world acquisitions, it hurts investors of the acquirer in the short term, but benefit them in the long term. I am all for profitable acquisition. But also don't mind some short term pain. When a acquisition is not profitable short term, but synergies and long term it is. I would love to see an ama on why it benefits Olympus.