@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.
OIP-82: Tender Offer for Spartacus Finance
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.
electo Great question!
New OHM will be minted - so current numbers as per our dashboard & fluidsonic's RFV calculations are as follows:
11,243,707 OHM (circulating supply) w/ RFV of US$22.12
The post proposal numbers would be:
11,243,707 OHM + approx. 900k OHM minted (US$50M worth at today's price) would equal new RFV of US$23.46$
- Edited
Ser I would lead with the two lines above tbh 
I'll discuss this internally with our team also. Increasing RFV does make sense, but this also is a significant number towards expansion in a single transaction.
One last question - how would this transaction affect backing per OHM ? Would that not come down?
Don't think we should be giving out a blanket offer for ohm fork devs to join olympus dao when this sub genre is known for bad actors. I thought the head of this project rugged anyway lol? Also second the other comments about the high probability for gohm dumping. I mean shit, it's been difficult enough to 3,3 since the crash.
I think it's a 'neat idea' this, but negative EV. Just too many risks for what we are getting.
Shreddy The fact that our RFV is down to $22.12 tells you everything you need to know to realize this should not be a priority. We need to be focusing on sustainable ways to increase RFV and this proposal would only add $1 in RFV, so I don't see how this is where we are focused?? The idea of us buying all these other forks just to acquire their treasury doesn't do anything to solve the problem long term.
The long term value of this protocol is in the potential of our treasury and what could be done with it. If all we are going to do is buy failed OHM forks to add to that treasury to buy more failed OHM forks, then there's not really a value proposition there.
I'd really like to see more ideas in terms of ways to stimulate buying pressure and sustainable ways to increase RFV like Zeus' internal bonds proposal. That would help grow RFV AND add to the value proposition for holders, which should have a flywheel-like impact on protocol growth. This current proposal is just short-sighted and pointless.
Hey uliner! Thanks for your thoughts.
I think we may have our blinders on here a bit, this is just a suggestion of one treasury mechanism of many that aim to create RFV and add value. It is fine if you do not agree and I hope you have voted as such; if the community as a whole feels it will not add value then it will not be pursued.
If you check our Olympus12 Action plan linked in the proposal, there are many exciting projects on the way that increase value to the Olympus token and community.
Ser can we has following and add it to the proposal? I understand these may change slightly based on market conditions, but should give us a good indication. For backing would be looking at the backing price with respect to what is shown on the dashboard (realising dashboard number is not true backing, we still need to use that as its what people see).
1. Change in RFV post mint
2. Change in Backing post mint (both backing price as shown in dashboard and actual)
3. Change in total supply post mint
I ask for above because this will affect reward rates, and may affect APY soon after the mint. I dont think the change is clear enough for most users as currently written. #1 and #3 are already answered, though should be in the proposal too.
It would also be nice if policy team can provide their insights.
- Would minting a supply this high have any affect on reward rates. Since bonding effectively is offset by rewards, current holder dilution is a concern. Are we planning to increase the rewards while this offer is being considered? Are we considering a guarantee rewards will not be dropped lower post mint for x amount of time?
- Instead of a $ price, can we change the offer to % discount to market price (like most of our bonds work). What is stopping anyone to drive OHM price down and driving SPA up during the offer? Any contingencies in place for this? While the price of SPA going up doesnt matter, OHM going down does. In this case only OHM RFV should be considered for any offers.