The notion of a token vesting period is very interesting and one way at least we would see any immediate dump remediated even if it does spread it out over time. Not a bad thing in and of itself.
OIP-82: Tender Offer for Spartacus Finance
8thwonder Is this in the ethos of 3,3? I didn’t read this in the docs? There will be no snap shot no vote no nothing. This is torturous interference and in your words “hostile takeover” therefore we feel it’s best for Spartacus to pursue other partnerships elsewhere. Thank you. Thanks for the out good job 
.
- Edited
Please calm down. It was a simple question - since no one had mentioned it. I actually replied to another post that I am glad we are talking to the devs. I'm not a fan of hostile takeovers. I do understand these things are by their nature contentious. Some people will support and others will be against it.
@Olympus DAO team for future - when we put in a tend offer OIP, let's be clear in the description where we stand with the other team. Transparency helps. Thanks.
PorkChop but your not talkin to devs. Dev replied to u and said not interested in offer because it puts ohm first and we can do better on our own. But we can’t get anything done in our discord now because ohmies keep coming there pushing narratives like your fellow said “hostile takeover” his words were tweeted and I have been put on notice. We will not be bullied. “Hostile takeover” is not 3,3 and not in best interest of Defi. Shame on u
I like the idea but don't love the specifics. I agree we should be putting this forward as a % premium to market cap, % discount to the treasury. Similarly, I think the fixed $500k dev grant should be converted to a percent of the market cap rather than a straight dollar amount. Other than the ability to get a discount to a stable treasury (which is good) the dev grant should be tied to the conveyance of technology. I don't personally know enough about what they are doing to know if the tech is worth anything but some of the more hostile replies above suggest that at least a few people think they have superior tech. It would be nice if these specific qualitative deal points were laid out in this proposal. I'm currently in favor, presuming the proposal is modified to reflect some changes suggested above.
willynikes I respectfully disagree. (3,3) mean number go up. Accretive M&A make number go up.
Tender Offer is (10,10)
@Olympus DAO team for future - when we put in a tend offer OIP, let's be clear in the description where we stand with the other team. Transparency helps. Thanks.
artimana
We are paying a discount for a dying asset's underlying assets/balance sheet. There is no premium being paid to what we are buying in that sense. So we aren't buying SPA, but their treasury. SPA will be rolled up into OHM in a win-win fashion.
We need the $500k to help the deal go through and show good faith. It's actually a tactical calculation and quite common in a public tender offer.
gOHM will not be diluted by this deal. In fact, backing per gOHM will directly increase as a result. Moreover, the OIP outlined the use of new liquidity to absorb hypothetical sell pressure. Please let me know if you'd like me to expand on any of these ideas, hope this helps 
Can we amend OIP-82 to clarify what happens to SPA tokenholders if OIP-82 succeeds?
The current wording does not define a minimum amount of required SPA deposits into the TO contract. Hypothetically, OlympusDAO and SpartacusDAO may meet OIP-82's conditions and grant OlympusDAO treasury control with near-zero SPA deposits into the TO contract. In other words, all OlympusDAO really requires to gain control of SpartacusDAO's treasury is buy-in from the devs, not from their community.
In a way I believe this is advantageous to OlympusDAO:
- The less SPA deposited into the TO account, the less gOhm minted to satisfy the Tender Offer
- The less gOhm minted, the less OlympusDAO "pays" to gain treasury control
- The less OlympusDAO pays, the more USD backing per Ohm is added after the Spartacus treasury is absorbed
However, I get the impression from OIP-82's wording and the discussions here and on the OlympusDAO discord that OlympusDAO extends this offer in good faith to both increase our treasury and build our community.
If OlympusDAO wants to encourage SPA token holders to deposit funds into the Tender Offer contract, I suggest we consider committing a certain value or percentage of assets to be distributed equally among those who deposit their SPA into the Tender Offer contract. We can also define some minimum threshhold of SPA token deposits.
thewatcher61 I see what you are saying, but we are buying the treasury, not the tokens - we still make a good deal of profit at these numbers and provide an incentive for SPA holders to take a decent exit. If we come too close to current market price, it isn't a good deal compared to what SPA holders could get if the treasury were to just unwind. win-win.
wanderingkevin Appreciate the feedback!
Does the percent help to abstract away looking at a big number? I am not sure if I understand that, as far as I see it the treasury will not increase if bonds are not active (looks like they are not atm) so there is no growth or reduction in a treasury made of stables. The number would be the same at a percent or a fixed amount.
As to it being tied to technology, we are not acquiring any tech the dev is creating that we cannot already work on in-house, it is merely an act of good faith to incentivize cooperation.
Either way, I truly appreciate your feedback - we are taking it all into account.
Hi there, you're very welcome. My thoughts around % related more to fluctuation in both the market cap and the treasury (I don't know the project well enough if the treasury isn't changing then this could be a moot point) vs. stating a fixed amount.
willynikes Hey Willy, happy to hear out your opinion.
I just want to start by saying that Spartacus is free to vote on this matter in snapshot if they so choose to. Nothing is stopping you there.
Secondly, what we vote upon has nothing to do with the sentiment of Spartacus' community. If we were to pass this OIP, there would still be a further governance process and Conditions that need to be met for the deal to go through. If they do not, we are wholly indifferent. We believe it is in your best interest to consider, but there is no pressure to do so and a rejection would be fine.
While your opinion is highly valued, ultimately it will be our community that decides if they even want to go forth with this proposal in the first place. This is not a "hostile takeover" as we are not employing hostile measures. It is a show of good faith and an olive branch to a protocol which shares similar values.
I do not believe I will convince you we are coming at this from a place of good intention, but I implore you to examine how that may be possible.
As always, I sincerely thank you for your comments and would be glad to hear more would you have anything else to add.
wanderingkevin The treasury is made nearly entirely of stables, it is not a moot point though and something we need to consider for future tender offers.
Thank you so much for your thoughts!
uliner This post is absolutely spot on
ty ser. The explanation does clear it up a lot more. One more question, and apologies if this has been answered.
1. Will the OHM used for payment be paid out of what is currently in the treasury or new OHM will be minted? If new OHM is minted (akin to a bond), can we have rough numbers on how much the supply of OHM increases and what would be the rfv after the mint?
Something like:
Pre proposal.
1000 OHM. RFV = $5.
Post Proposal
1000 OHM + 200 OHM minted RFV = 7$
Thanks.
- Edited
8thwonder How do you suppose gohm will not be diluted since they are giving gohm to spa holders and who cares if the backing goes up if the gohm market price is going down because of increased selling pressure. How does that help current gohm holders?
Why don't you advocate the team use the liquidity outlined in the OIP to help current gohm holders who are rekt due to the price of OHM over the last couple of months instead of helping people who chose to support a completely different project while chasing APY.
The price of OHM could have been greatly supported had these spa investors chosen to put that money in Olympus Dao. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them pulled money from Olympus to invest in SPA causing some of the liquidations that sent OHM plummeting. And now giving them gohm is somehow going to benefit current gohm holders after they may have contributed to the spot we are in now?
R.e. there still being a Spartacus site. If this all happens and they vote for it too. Would the dashboard become the same as ours? i.e. same treasury based on OHM. Would new people buying into the protocol buy OHM? Would the website rebrand to Olympus. That kind of thing. If you could create some clarity there that would be great.