• Proposal

  • OIP-82: Tender Offer for Spartacus Finance

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.

            @"Dropkickdarre

            Dropkickdarren the new nft tech is Spartacus is developing new ve token model with vesting features similar to solidly 3,3 design. We are also goin permissionless. U guys “bond” model won’t work because no market for bonds. But big market for new Andre nfts. So u tryin to buy spa for nft tech that’s why grant to Dev. First off spa does not need or wanted help. Second your offer is too cheap and priced as if we’re in distress we are not distressed. We have lending protocol and can easily stimulate both with our treasury. I feel ohmies are better than this and this is not a good look bullying smaller protocols because u guys wanting buy tech your devs can’t code. The bonds were a good idea. Nfts are better idea with same features as bonds. Get some devs that can make gOhm nft and stop bullying us. We are not for sale. U guys are acting like corporate raiders right now. Not cool

                U guys can still program your yield curves and have secondary market for gOhm so gOhm never actually sold but u must turn gOhm into nft. But spa is not your panacea for this. Your devs need to develop this on they own. Y’all got the money u can do it. Wagmi 3,3

                Be smart ohmies. Why is olympus offering 500k to dev who ghosted his protocol. Yall are being lied to. Olympus in trying to buy spa tech because your tokenomics are about to be obsolete. Your devs cant code it fast enough so u resort to corporate raiding. This is nothing but fud arbitration. Sad to see how the mighty have fallen. But thanks on signaling our value to the market

                  willynikes So far Spartacus has forked Olympus and Abracadabra, so I don't think this proposal relates in any way to the inherent tech skills of the protocol. The entire point of this proposal is to offer SPA holders a way out (since its trading significantly below backing) that is also accretive to OHM holders. And why offer a developer grant? Well one reason is that the devs control the keys, and so without their support the deal won't happen anyway. Another reason, as stated in the proposal, is that it gives them the opportunity to join Olympus and continue building.

                  In general, I am in favour of exploring the tender offer.

                    Dom98000 Fully agree. We should focus on treasury only and offer a vesting period for Spartacus holders. We don't want them to dump their new gOHMs on us.

                      There is one thing we have to considering. If the voting result is very close. Shall we just follow the result or modify the proposal and try to get more consensus?

                      Shreddy

                      I support the thought process behind this as it’s a more cost effective bond for us. Also recognize the need to incentivize their devs to do a deal but that sets a bad precedent.

                      I’ve voted yes for now on the condition we don’t spend more than 3-4 days on this. Otherwise valuable contributor time gets lost chasing a low probability deal.

                        Dropkickdarren

                        I think the twitter post exaggerated the "MIA" part a bit. I went to their discord to verify whether Spartacus is actually MIA for more than a month. It doesn't look like he has been MIA for that long. The comms from him have been sparse, sure, but not that different from direct comms from core in a lot of other protocols.

                        He was super active yesterday around this proposal and an announcement b4 this proposal
                        Has messages in the discord on 2/16 and 2/13 before today.

                        Personally still on the fence about the proposal but won't be factoring him being MIA in my decision personally, because don't think he has been.