OIP-82: Tender Offer for Spartacus Finance

supesumonki but those people could have been Ohmies, but chose to go with another fork. No issue with that, everyone can do whatever they want. I just don’t think we as a protocol are in a particular position of strength at the moment… I would rather have any OHM dilution going to people who currently back the protocol (and therefore stake their OHM/hold gOHM) instead of bailing others out.

I think the DAO’s mindshare and focus should be on ways to stimulate buy pressure and a $1.00 increase in RFV is not going to do anything in the short term, nor will it have any sort of lasting impact moving forward.

I'm so far with but I do not understand how the offer of transfer from SPA to gOhm is not going to make a sell pressure. How is the sell pressure going to be handled?

Olympus has been authorized to take action to absorb any sell pressure that might occur after the Tender Price is paid, including by establishing a new V3 liquidity position which could capture 100% of the gOHM paid as part of the deal.

Would think it would be nice to include the link to SPA frontend https://app.spartacus.finance/#/dashboard.
It's quite a nice dashboard compare to a lot of the forks out there and I understand why a dev grant is in the books

Thanks for this. I like our 'Tender' capability in principle. Two questions on this one.

1). What happens to Spartacus does the site close down and essentially everyone onboards as OHMies?

2). Is this a hostile takeover? Have we been talking with the devs and the Spartacus team in general?

Thanks

I don't think a pure gOHM payout is the best play here. We're going to have some in their community unwilling to accept the offer simply because they hate the token. We also introduce a concentrated liquidity position which would allow for large exists funded by the treasury. I'd prefer to pay their DAI out directly as an option.

Shreddy

Thanks Shreddy.

Good to hear r.e. the ongoing conversations with the devs etc.

R.e. there still being a Spartacus site. 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.

Thanks again.

tumblebumble The "$34" figure is in reference to the market premium (tender offer price - spot price). This was 50 - 16 = 34 at the time and the post is referring to the SPA token.

willynikes All that matters is what SPA holders decide to do with their coins. If the majority of HODLers take the tender offer then OHM will eat SPA and their dev's quibbles will be irrelevant assuming full OHM control. Please don't try to speak for all SPA holders as I am one and I am greatly in favor of this deal.

This is a hostile takeover now AFAIK - a common practice in traditional public equities and a healthy part of financial markets. Clearly, SPA holders are discontent with the performance of their fork so far given the market price - I am looking forward to watching these two great projects join forces in a win-win deal.

Shreddy

Shreddy would it not maybe be a little better to offer cost +20% for the tokens,

The poster that said why are we paying premium dollar for a failing DAO, is correct. If Spartacus finance is failing and they’re currently trading well below backing offer them current token price +20% I’m sure making a little bit of money is better than making nothing or losing everything

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 .

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

Shreddy why pay a premium for a dying asset? This will dilute the balue of the gOHM when all the tendered coins selloff the first instance they get. Oh and on top of that we are paying a ghosting team developers $500K grant? No thanks!

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.