• Proposal
  • OIP-82: Tender Offer for Spartacus Finance

Stoked that the gears are already turning around OIP-80.

That said: are we sure we feel comfortable with a $500k grant vested over 90 days in light of recent concerns around their "development team"? This proposal sets a precedent for use of OIP-80 going forward, so we should be careful not to incentivize behavior that doesn't align with Olympus. Even if it means an increase in treasury assets.

uliner 17m in rfv profit for our treasury. Bumps our rfv by like 1.5 dollars per ohm

No bueno, over paying for a dying asset. Why in Gods name would we overpay none the less think they would stay once being over compensated?

    Shreddy

    Spartacus treasury should be minimum of $60mm.

    Same way, please also inform how much $gOhm are we paying out for it?

    This will make us everyday user understand “how much ee are paying and how much we are getting ”

    Intangible benefits of acquiring community, good faith gesture etc will be like a bonus for us!

    spoysP A) there’s risk in being an arbitrageur and depositing into the tender offer contract that dissuades this (albeit only somewhat). There is the possibility that the devs won’t transfer the treasury, in which case the deposits are returned (and price likely tanks), and no gOHM is paid out, causing someone who is purely in it for the arb to lose money.

    For your other question, we’re offering gOHM at a premium to current SPA token prices but at a discount to the treasury, not a premium to the treasury, so it is still beneficial to absorb selling pressure as long as it doesn’t result in a nuke greater than the profit we stand to make from the discount

    joe1 because the treasury is worth more than what we’d pay. It’d be 8 figures of profit if the tender offer goes through

    UncommonSense a $17m profit for the treasury will be beneficial for holders of OHM too, it’s not a bailout as much as it is a trade. Increases our rfv by about 1.5 dollars per ohm if everything goes smoothly

      Shreddy By integrating Spartacus' treasury, development team, and community with those of Olympus, we will strengthen our RFV while welcoming potentially valuable team members

      First & foremost, we shouldn’t be dishing out a grant to a non-communicative development team.

      Although the treasury and the SPA community could ultimately benefit Olympus, it doesn’t make sense to dish out a 500k grant for a dev team who have ghosted the project for over a month

      <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

      Shreddy gOHM equal to US$50 (the “Tender Price”), reflecting a premium to the SPA market price of approximately US$34.25

      What was the due diligence process here? The rationale that Olympus should absorb sell pressure at an all-time low doesn’t exactly scream a sign of confidence for existing Ohm holders? I’d imagine a lot of Ohmies who are already in the red would view this as an illogical next step… Ohmies need a better explanation to why this would benefit them, even though the treasury ultimately benefits -> which ends up benefiting ohm holders. We also need to consider the weird precedent this sets for other forks who ultimately diluted Olympus as a core infra piece in DeFi. The discount to MV needs to be re-evaluated given how -EV projects like this were for Olympus as a whole…

      I can see a lot of Ohmies viewing this as; ‘Why give fork chasers a chance to exit via the very project they were extracting value from’. Again, this isn’t necessarily my view but I’m attempting to see this from the perspective of another Ohmie.

      <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

      Shreddy an additional period of 365 days will begin after the Tender Period (the “Straggler Period”) in which Olympus will pay, in gOHM, 90% of the USD-equivalent of the Tender Price

      The ‘Straggler Period’ should be significantly shorter (ie. 90 days). In the scenario we execute other tender offers, Olympus should be cognizant of timelines and be looking to consolidate action instead of letting getting lazy and leaving things open for an *almost indefinite period of time…

      <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

      This is ultimately a no from me until we;

      • get more communication from the SPA team.
      • re-evaluate grant sum
      • reconsider discount to MV

        I think the fact you guys are using your treasury to stop progress is disgusting. You get no value from buying spa treasury. You just stop competition. If you guys have no revenue focus on that. You cant buy you way out of this whole you guys in. You cant make the money to bring apy up so yall doing these grandstanding moves is silly. Yall not even buying best part of ecoyssytem. Spartacadabra worth more than spa and only part of ecosysytme that makes money. I dont know what game yall playing but its unethical to long term spa holders. We not in distress. Dev protected our treasury for long term. WE have new tokenomics comin etc. Shameful on yall ohm. By the way as huge spa owner i do not want to be ohm holder so dumpooooor of gohm this pass. Ty.

        uliner

        It's not a bail-out. It's immediately accretive to OHM backing.

        Given the fact that we are dealing with rebase tokens (whose number keeps on increasing) and assets whose price keeps on changing, I think the proposal needs to be worded in terms of percent of treasury value of Spartacus. E.g. Olympus is buying Spartacus at the lower of 75% of treasury value or 25% above market value. The developers will get grant equal to 1% of proposal value etc. Actual percentage values need to be figured out, of course.

        The backing per SPA and market price of the token are already quite different from that in the proposal and make little sense now.

          This is not good for ohmies. Y’all not getting any value. Spa don’t need bailout y’all need tech and revenue. Spa didn’t asked to be saved ? Y’all need nft tech and devs can’t create. We will be back later to buy y’all treasury pls and Ty. Nice try tho

            Lienid….I think you are kidding yourself with this notion….possibly 6 months ago this statement would have meant more in my opinion but I think more recently the treasury value is completely disconnected with token price….as I said….I am still doubtful this truly adds value to the price of OHM outside of the treasury making more money

              UncommonSense it don’t add value they just want spa tech. Gains could be had by investing. Plus they are better plays out ther especially on ftm. This is about spa tech that ohm devs can’t make. They want nft

                willynikes….fair enough but still waiting on someone to explain how this directly helps OHM token and as a result those of us upside down

                I am in favor of the tender framework (more so to acquire productive rather than dying protocols). Appreciate the team bringing this offer to the forums.

                Have reservations though:

                If this goes through a savvy trader would:
                1. Buy SPA -> Redeem to gOHM -> Sell gOHM -> Free money

                Because of the above, others would:

                2. Use the v3 pool to sell and front-run the sells that are about to come from SPA holders by exiting out of their own red bags.

                Their community seems very divided on this proposal. Lets assume 30% of them decide to sell. Are we absorbing 30% of the sell pressure from the treasury?

                As it currently stands, this would be a no (personal opinion), and I would recommend the same to Abachi treasury & policy teams. This would be a much better aligned proposal had we been buying these assets at a discount. They are already at a discount right now at market because backing is higher than market price.

                For this to be a good proposal my suggestions:
                1. Lock the gOHM for 1 year or 6 months on redeem.
                2. Lock the price at slight premium to market for the treasury. Not a premium to backing. Provide unlimited liquidity to redeem SPA -> gOHM at this price. e.g. $20 (currently trading at 15)
                3. Remove the developer grant. Makes no sense. We are already bailing out the devs and core team, traditionally they would be the biggest token holders. Replace the grant with actual job offers via an interview process for those we think should be absorbed (like any other merger).

                Also, why wouldn’t we have taken a snapshot of SPA holders before this OIP went up? Now that this has been announced, there’s absolutely no doubt people will buy SPA just for the arb opportunity. This just feels incredibly poorly thought through…

                  For me, a fundamental piece of information missing in this proposal is why management believes Spartacus Finance is a project worth acquiring. If you are going to attempt to pitch this to the community, wouldn’t an actual pitch be needed? Is management expecting that ohmies do all the due diligence themselves without management providing any of their own analysis and rational?

                  I also feel a bit uneasy about the 500k grant. The developers are already getting an immediate 50% premium on their SPA holdings. And on top of that we are are offering them jobs with the DAO? What will the compensation for that be? What value does management believe these developers will bring that justifies all of these financial rewards?

                  As it stands I have no idea what value Spartacus Finance and its staff brings to our DAO other than its treasury and even that was not covered at all in this proposal. I sincerely hope this is merely a first draft proposal because it is sorely lacking in any rational or analysis whatsoever to help the community make an informed vote.