• Proposal

  • OIP-82: Tender Offer for Spartacus Finance

elduque

Dom98000

Lienid it appears that the figures ($50 tender) are based on wsSPA and not SPA, which was nowhere close to$ 34 recently.

Shreddy if all we are trying to accomplish is acquire their treasury at a discount then we should just buy SPA on the open market until we control their treasury. There’s no reason why we should pay such a significant premium over market. But if there is some other reason (is there “NFT tech” involved?), then that should be included in this proposal. I’m voting no on this as proposed.

            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.

                      8thwonder.eth is significantly in favor of this tender offer. It represents a strategic opportunity for OHM to make an accretive M&A play by buying a distressed protocol that needs daddy (OHM). This is the type of opportunity that makes technology M&A bankers in TardFi salivate - significant alpha for both parties. Should this deal go through, it would immediately increase the backing per OHM and bring in new OHMies - a win, win. I plan to publicly support this initiative and applaud the team on pursuing a gigabrain investment opportunity. It's time to eat a protocol OHMies for fun and profit.

                      We will vote our 58 gOHM in favor of the OIP - HODLers rejoice

                      JaLa I understand that, but my point is that the only reason we are interested in them is to get their treasury at a deep discount (unless there’s some other reason; again the proposal doesn’t really mention anything else meaningful). So we should structure a deal that accomplished what we want, and not provide all these sweeteners that eat into the value. And we really want this treasury we likely will have to purchase a good chunk of SPA to force the deal down their throats. We would of course acquire those tokens strategically and not in a single slippage riddled transaction.

                      • JaLa replied to this.

                          tumblebumble open to other suggestions on deal structure. A group in the dao with experience in these matters considered many structures and believed this to be optimal but that doesn't mean there is no room to improve. This should be a community-driven and iterative process.

                              JaLa Understood. I think dropkickdarren above was asking the right questions if we were to proceed along the lines of this proposal.

                              But this initial proposal raises another issue for me that goes to the heart of OIP-80 and making proposals to forks generally. I know we think that these forks and their holders would act rationally and recognize that we’re proposing—a premium over token price but a discount from treasury market value—is the best they can possibly hope for out of the fork whether they take the deal or not. But in significant part we’re dealing with “HODL” and “WAGMI” mentality that may prevent most if not all of these offers from being accepted. Maybe a friendly fork (like Umami) would be amenable to terms like this, but from what I’ve observed, every other fork thinks that we suck and that they’re doing all the right things, and it’s just a matter of time before they make it and we don’t.

                              this is my long way of saying that I think we may need to take a more Gordon Gekko approach to acquiring discounted treasuries from certain forks.

                                There are already good comments and suggestions made in this thread. Hopefully team picks up on it. In the current format the proposal is a big no go. Although I see a most of the comments disapproving the proposal with good justification for disagreement and hardly any comments in justification, the overall vote for approval is more. What's happening here? Should my faith in Ohm erode here.

                                • JaLa replied to this.

                                  bone but it would be more fun if we bought it for even less and without a $500k parachute!

                                    clearly no.

                                    it's just a bailout for dying capycat project with paying extremely high premium.

                                    no merits, but harm to olympus.

                                    • JaLa replied to this.

                                      Why has a 3rd vote option been added? Please tell me the OHM team did not do this because they were not happy with the way the yes/no vote has been trending toward "no" lately.

                                        UncommonSense It is actually the opposite ser, I think there was too much binary decision making and we wanted to allow people who were on the fence to have a voting option. We are indifferent to the vote outcome.

                                          OIP-82 Addendum

                                          Hello Ohmies!

                                          I want to thank everyone for the incredible feedback, it is great to see deliberate and sensible discourse around this topic. We are carefully reading all messages and are taking them into account.

                                          Since the poll has been voted on I am not able go back and make edits that some of the community were asking for to get clarity on some of the deal points. However, I will outline them in this message instead. Let this message act as a analogous source of information for this proposal.

                                          To start, I have added a third option to the poll which will allow people to vote for an amendment to this proposal to be put up. This will allow new voters to voice their mixed opinion by voting for a new proposal to be created. This was not a way to change the narrative, we are indifferent as to whether it passes or not. This is a community vote through and through.

                                          To be clear, if this proposal were to pass, we will make available a smart contract via an Olympus front end to execute the tender offer. SPA holders will be able to show their support for the process by depositing their tokens into the contract. Their tokens will be wrapped and staked so they do not miss any rebases, and will be available for withdrawal if the proposal fails. Although this is not technically a “vote” by SPA holders, it is an equivalent way to show support for the tender offer. This is the best way we saw to include the Spartacus community in the process.

                                          On the dev grant: The goal of the grant is certainly not to reward inactive devs or act as a vehicle for devs to spin up projects and then abandon them in hopes of gaining a grant. The intention is to open up a line of communication with Spartacus devs and incentivize them to cooperate through the entire process and set SPA holders free. Since Spartacus has no direct community -> developer feedback pipeline, this was our process to aid that. We are open to reworking this point if it is not appealing to the community.

                                          On some of the deal points that need further explanation:

                                          • There was a bit of confusion around why this deal is +EV, but there are winning scenarios all around. For Olympus, we will be making a swap for the treasury, which will net us around US$16.17M at the time of writing this addendum. This, in turn, compensates for the supply increase of OHM we will mint for this deal. It is also much more cost effective than if we directly market bought the assets. For SPA holders, we are giving them an opportunity to exit their position in Spartacus at a more than 3x premium to their current price. If we were to offer them a lower price, the tender offer may not be attractive enough to move upon. For Developers, the deal will pay out a competitive (perhaps too competitive) exit sum that helps to curate a graceful exit, protected by a condition against rugging in which the multi-sig must be handed over prior to the trade occurring. The developer is also welcome to collaborate with Olympus further if they so choose to do so. Some may believe we shouldn't make this a positive outcome deal for the Developer and I can't blame them for thinking this.
                                          • The increase of backing / OHM if the deal were to go through at our proposed price with current market numbers would be approx. US$1.35 per OHM. We came to this conclusion based on the expected gain of treasury assets divided by the OHM supply. So that would be US$16.18M $divided by$ 12M. We are actually strengthening the value of $OHM tokens through this trade.
                                          • Our new V3 liquidity position is well equipped to handle and absorb the sell pressure of a sell-off were that to happen. Of course, we want every SPA holder to become new Ohmies from this deal if they weren't already, but we do expect many traders to sell and have hedged against that outcome as best as possible. There would be minimal to no impact on price if our liquidity wall were put into place.

                                          Please continue to leave questions and comments - we will continue to field them and give as many answers as possible.

                                            rustycandy we're buying the treasury at a discount, not a premium.