OIP-82: Tender Offer for Spartacus Finance

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

Big NO for me.

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

I am weary of any affiliation with SPA at this time. The project has seemed stagnant since spartacadabra launch. Allegations by WAGMI could have been refuted if Spartacus had brought the receipts but the post was simply deleted. I would be more inclined to be positive about the proposal laid out above if Spartacus seemed healthy. I hold wsSPA and would benefit from this proposal. I do not think this is the right move for Ohmies.

I certainly approve of buying assets at a discount. As has been suggested previously marking the tender price as a % reduction from backing would be preferable given price volatility.

The fact that no terms are attached to the developer grant points to it being an incentive for the devs to ensure the deal goes through. I'm not against paying a price if we still come out with discounted assets, but I think Olympus should be more targeted and transparent here and actually state what it wants.

From my understanding: we want to persuade the devs who a) have skills we want in Olympus and b) control the treasury of the protocol. So lets put a list together of who they are and make them an offer.

Using language like 'developer grant' and 'tender offer' is very nice and 3,3 but lets be real. This is a takeover. We need to persuade key players to cooperate. If ohmies view the grant as a price to gain substantial discounted assets, I think there will much less resistance. Then its up to SPA devs + holders whether they want to do it.

It would be good if there is some number listing of Before & After to buy the DAO.

And the developer grant i think is kind of risky, since their dev has ghohsted a while,

thats not a good signal..

willynikes hey there. Thanks for your input as all feedback is welcome. That said, would greatly appreciate if you focused on the substance of the proposal and stopped spamming the forum. Thank you.

tumblebumble this proposal poses no financial risk to Olympus, whereas buying SPA tokens directly would be significant financial risk

tumblebumble buying on the open market would pose great financial risk with no way to ensure that we receive the treasury assets. Furthermore, given the liquidity, slippage would be very high such that only a relatively small % of tokens could be purchased at what would be profitable levels.

gemini to clarify, this is not an acquisition of Spartacus but a proposed takeover of the treasury. Spartacus would cease to operate if this were to go through. SPA holders would receive a significant premium to market while Olympus would receive the SPA treasury assets (Dai and FTM) at a discount - tantamount to a very large and profitable bond.

Another clarification - there is no management team; we are all members of the DAO.