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!
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.
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 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
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.
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 
.
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.
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
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:
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.
thewatcher61 I see what you are saying, but we are buying the treasury, not the tokens - we still make a good deal of profit at these numbers and provide an incentive for SPA holders to take a decent exit. If we come too close to current market price, it isn't a good deal compared to what SPA holders could get if the treasury were to just unwind. win-win.
wanderingkevin Appreciate the feedback!
Does the percent help to abstract away looking at a big number? I am not sure if I understand that, as far as I see it the treasury will not increase if bonds are not active (looks like they are not atm) so there is no growth or reduction in a treasury made of stables. The number would be the same at a percent or a fixed amount.
As to it being tied to technology, we are not acquiring any tech the dev is creating that we cannot already work on in-house, it is merely an act of good faith to incentivize cooperation.
Either way, I truly appreciate your feedback - we are taking it all into account.
Hi there, you're very welcome. My thoughts around % related more to fluctuation in both the market cap and the treasury (I don't know the project well enough if the treasury isn't changing then this could be a moot point) vs. stating a fixed amount.
