• Proposal

  • OIP-82: Tender Offer for Spartacus Finance

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.

            Haven't done a deep dive into SPA and their competitive advantage, revenue generation potential, etc. The following thoughts are only applicable under the assumption that the project is worth absorbing, and would likely mirror my sentiment for any tender offer:

            1. A fairly long vesting schedule. A year+ would not be inappropriate.
            2. Get rid of the $500k dev incentive. Buying SPA at a premium should already carry that benefit for them.

            Sounds like it's time for a live AMA with both sides…

            Is there a way to find out how much SPA is leveraged and what effect this can have if we proceed? Could unwinding or a run of liquidations cause harm to the deal ?

            A few minutes reading up in Spartacus discord and can see talk of people being leveraged inside their ecosystem.

            willynikes
            Ser, you might wanna stop "liking" your own comments. It looks sad 😆 .
            Second, the only thing this tender does is signal our intent to acquire the treasury and give SPA holders a way out. You can keep the "tech".
            (This only happens if our community approves it, and then if the SPA community wants it, if they don't, it won't happen, so your energies might be better spent making sure you can convince YOUR community of your point of view).

                zulqarnain Dev already answered. “We are preparing for solidly war”. The issue won’t get raised for snapshot now. You guys wasting your time at this point unless u raise offer. We would rather redistribute than partner with ohm. Nice try tho. Wagmi 3,3

                  Personally, if it’s + for our RFV, go ahead. Not worried about the gOHM dumping because we can absorb that with their treasury if needed.

                  That said, we need to remove the developer grant. The premium above market price should be enough, the devs are probably top holders anyway. If we get rid of that, this proposal is an easy yes.

                  saupa yes, should be done based on wsSPA which represents a constant portion of the treasury

                      Dom98000 this is at a discount to market value of the treasury. just at a premium to the current token price