OIP-82: Tender Offer for Spartacus Finance

JaLa

UncommonSense noone is trying to pull cheap tricks here.

supesumonki

uliner it's not a bailout.

If you think about what's happening here, there's no difference than if someone were to take their dai and bond to get ohm. This is just different in scale.

If you think closely about the mechanics, it's not a premium, you're actually trading your ohm for dai. Ohmies are getting a better deal since you're not giving out ohm at a discount.

On top of that, you get additional community members and bailing out an entire cohort of people to help evangelize ohm since you "bailed" them out.

uliner

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.

lauri

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.

lauri

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

PorkChop

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

Shreddy

PorkChop

Thanks for the questions Pork Chop!

First off, we are not taking over the protocol - just the treasury. There will still be a Spartacus site if the deal were to go through. Although, new Ohmies would be awesome.

Second, it is not a hostile takeover. We have been in contact now with both mods and devs of Spartacus regarding this deal and expect to remain so throughout its life cycle.

I hope this helps!

pottedmeat

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.

PorkChop

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.

8thwonder

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.

8thwonder

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.

thewatcher61

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

PorkChop

HackerLaddy

The notion of a token vesting period is very interesting and one way at least we would see any immediate dump remediated even if it does spread it out over time. Not a bad thing in and of itself.

willynikes

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

willynikes

Please calm down. It was a simple question - since no one had mentioned it. I actually replied to another post that I am glad we are talking to the devs. I'm not a fan of hostile takeovers. I do understand these things are by their nature contentious. Some people will support and others will be against it.

@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.

willynikes

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

artimana

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!

wanderingkevin

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.

8thwonder

willynikes I respectfully disagree. (3,3) mean number go up. Accretive M&A make number go up.

🤝 Tender Offer is (10,10) 🤝

PorkChop

@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.

« Previous Page Next Page »