uliner

I am in favor of the tender framework (more so to acquire productive rather than dying protocols). Appreciate the team bringing this offer to the forums.

Have reservations though:

If this goes through a savvy trader would:
1. Buy SPA -> Redeem to gOHM -> Sell gOHM -> Free money

Because of the above, others would:

2. Use the v3 pool to sell and front-run the sells that are about to come from SPA holders by exiting out of their own red bags.

Their community seems very divided on this proposal. Lets assume 30% of them decide to sell. Are we absorbing 30% of the sell pressure from the treasury?

As it currently stands, this would be a no (personal opinion), and I would recommend the same to Abachi treasury & policy teams. This would be a much better aligned proposal had we been buying these assets at a discount. They are already at a discount right now at market because backing is higher than market price.

For this to be a good proposal my suggestions:
1. Lock the gOHM for 1 year or 6 months on redeem.
2. Lock the price at slight premium to market for the treasury. Not a premium to backing. Provide unlimited liquidity to redeem SPA -> gOHM at this price. e.g. $20 (currently trading at 15)
3. Remove the developer grant. Makes no sense. We are already bailing out the devs and core team, traditionally they would be the biggest token holders. Replace the grant with actual job offers via an interview process for those we think should be absorbed (like any other merger).

Shreddy By integrating Spartacus' treasury, development team, and community with those of Olympus, we will strengthen our RFV while welcoming potentially valuable team members

First & foremost, we shouldn’t be dishing out a grant to a non-communicative development team.

Although the treasury and the SPA community could ultimately benefit Olympus, it doesn’t make sense to dish out a 500k grant for a dev team who have ghosted the project for over a month…

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Shreddy gOHM equal to US$50 (the “Tender Price”), reflecting a premium to the SPA market price of approximately US$34.25

What was the due diligence process here? The rationale that Olympus should absorb sell pressure at an all-time low doesn’t exactly scream a sign of confidence for existing Ohm holders? I’d imagine a lot of Ohmies who are already in the red would view this as an illogical next step… Ohmies need a better explanation to why this would benefit them, even though the treasury ultimately benefits -> which ends up benefiting ohm holders. We also need to consider the weird precedent this sets for other forks who ultimately diluted Olympus as a core infra piece in DeFi. The discount to MV needs to be re-evaluated given how -EV projects like this were for Olympus as a whole…

I can see a lot of Ohmies viewing this as; ‘Why give fork chasers a chance to exit via the very project they were extracting value from’. Again, this isn’t necessarily my view but I’m attempting to see this from the perspective of another Ohmie.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Shreddy an additional period of 365 days will begin after the Tender Period (the “Straggler Period”) in which Olympus will pay, in gOHM, 90% of the USD-equivalent of the Tender Price

The ‘Straggler Period’ should be significantly shorter (ie. 90 days). In the scenario we execute other tender offers, Olympus should be cognizant of timelines and be looking to consolidate action instead of letting getting lazy and leaving things open for an *almost indefinite period of time…

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

This is ultimately a no from me until we;

• get more communication from the SPA team.
• re-evaluate grant sum
• reconsider discount to MV

Would like some clarification on the 500k $ for Spa dev team

Are we in contact or does the team have a direct line to the team of Spartacus? Recently some fud went through twitter with the main dev gone and not responding at all.

What I'm trying to figure out in my mind is whether or not the migration crisis on hand right presents an opportunity to push this in now with the narrative of further stabilizing the protocol and the value of OHM. It's clear to me that our current APY is not sustained by the rate at which the protocol is bonding. If we don't adjust the APY, the 'bleeding' will go on even longer.

At what cost? Selfishly, I'd love to get more runway at our current APY. So this will cost me some OHM now.

But I'm in this for the long-term, and a more reasonable APY has a net-positive effect on the protocol and OHM.

Also, this reduction was inevitable. We knew it was scheduled to happen at some point. We were told at 10 million OHM.

So what effect does doing it earlier have on the reputation/trust of the protocol? Sure, we'll always have people displeased (especially those with a short-term mindset), but will there be a large enough impact to the protocol because of doing this rate decrease early? For example, how was the decay rate of the APY supposed to be managed between the upper and lower bounds of the period? Was there an expectation set that it would decay linearly with supply over time? I don't think there was, but if not, this is also an important lesson in setting expectations. Saying the reward rate has yet to be adjusted since the initial value at 1 million OHM sounds like the team either forgot, was afraid to do so, or plain lazy. You're going to have people complaining that the decay was mismanaged and that now we're being penalized with a reduction before the 10 million mark. We have to be aware and navigate that PR storm.

In traditional startup land the runway sweet spot for early stage companies is usually around 1.5 years (about 20-25% less than the 700 days proposed)

More runway may feel safer, but it often also has the effect of getting complacent. I don't think we need 700 days at this stage tbh. 1-1.5 years seems like a better medium to not be in constant fear but also not feel to safe before we hit breakeven.

Does anyone else feel like we are tripping over our own feet right now?

shadow It is preferable to continuously match the growth of the protocol with the growth of supply through the reward rate and not have the discrepancy shown through the price as that causes not only volatility on the market, but in our revenues as well.

Rebasing reward rate should match demand, otherwise price goes down, as we've seen lately. The APY is only sustainable if people keep buying the discounted token sales through bonds (docs). Reward yield of 0.1587% gives daily growth of 0.4769% and APY of 468%. With 5,381,906 OHM staked right now, the protocol mints an additional 25,664 OHM to achieve this daily growth, equivalent to $10.2 million sold below market value at discounts of 1-5% to bond buyers. Without an equivalent amount of demand from bond buyers, the price will continue decreasing.

Daily revenue figures show a decline from a 7-day moving average of $17 million on October 26th to $3.8 million December 8th, a week ago, with more recent figures even lower. The Dune dashboard says this may not be accurate due to the migration underway to v2, but that started December 11th. Do we have a better estimate? The $3.8 million of daily bond buying demand would support an APY of 87% at the current price, or the above 468% APY at an Ohm price of 114. See my work in this spreadsheet.

If those APYs are unappealing, or if the lower price is unappealing, or if you think revenues are lower and going to remain low, or if you worry about the 11% drop in Ohm staking today, I would suggest you get out now.