APY plan, backing price proposal, token burn, permanent stability

General Discussion
1

APY Plan, backing price proposal, token burn, permanent stability

Name: APY Plan, when Wmemo price rises APY reduces

Plan: Add this phased out APY Reduction plan to the mature proposals the community is examining as a way forward for Wonderland. WONDERLAND 2.0, Professors Plan, Bastion Trading.

Link to previous [DAO Discussion]: [“[DAO Discussion] - Restore intrinsic value to Wmemo and Wonderland asset (with poll)

Objective: Present a phased in APY reduction plan that benefits the community through eventual elimination of APY incentivized by price movement.

High Level Overview: The Olympus protocol model is not the first to use massive APY as a marketing gimmick. Liquidity Pools have generated interest in staking to pools for years through providing initial high APY that only gets reduced as more liquidity from participation pours into the LP. Olympus pioneered protocol owned liquidity in which the protocol itself mainly the treasury attains 100% of the capture of the funds that pour into the LP. The idea was to eliminate mercenary capital from the equation, as participants exit the LP, the protocol itself isn’t affected as the protocol owns the money in the LP, the only loser is the LP participants. As the LP loses value from lack of interest, the only loser is those that remain in the LP. Should the protocol not have a future plan for these funds, holders of the token are left with a worthless token while the protocol developers have a rich treasury of funds. The model of high APY for participation is nothing new.

The Olympus model did not solve mercenary capital, instead it made the problem into an addiction like heroine. Now, helpless individuals hop from protocol to protocol chasing the highest APY only to dump the devalued tokens on those remaining in the prisoners dilemma. The first out achieve the APY promise while those left holding only hope the developers have a plan. (Devs do something!) APY is now heroine, if one OHM Fork doesn’t provide the best short term APY then the masses will simply hop to the next fork offering the short term dream. You cant remove the heroine from the junkie by decree of APY cut; every time Olympus performs a framework reduction value drops - its a combination of sentiment, market conditions and competition - nevertheless the result has been the same, value drops. Recently Hector DAO performed an APY reduction and value dropped from $52 to as low as $10. As of this righting the price is now sitting at $24.

The problem with cutting the APY by decree is their is always a new fork waiting to capture the disgruntled. APY cuts by decree kill new address growth and only those with a significant balance of the asset already have any gain to achieve from APY cuts. This is why the capital flight happens. Cut gets announced, flight happens. Those without a significant balance are now trapped below initial entry value. Meanwhile the exited capital is now staking on the “next OHM Fork that marketed high APY”. Predictable because it happens every time.

Solution Those like me that study and examine this know when a protocol starts discussing APY reduction that is the perfect time to exit and wait for the lower entry. The APY cut cannot be punitive it has to be incentivized. So how do we incentivize it? Based the APY on the increase/decrease of price.

Example:

At 0K - 49,999 Wmemo then APY = 35,000%
At 50k - 59,999 Wmemo then APY = 30,000%
At 60k - 69,999 Wmemo then APY = 20,000%
At 70k - 79,999 Wmemo then APY = 15,000%
At 80k - 89,999 Wmemo then APY = 10,000%
At 90k - 99,999 Wmemo then APY = 7500%
At 100k - 109,999 Wmemo then APY = 5000%
At 110k - 119,999 Wmemo then APY = 2500%
At 120K - 129,999 Wmemo then APY = 1000%
At 130K - 139,999 Wmemo then APY = 500%
At 140K - 149,999 Wmemo then APY = 250%
At 150K - 159,999 Wmemo then APY = 200%
At 160K - 169,999 Wmemo then APY = 100%
At 170K - 179,999 Wmemo then APY = 50%
At 180K - 200K Wmemo then APY = 10%
Above 200K Wmemo APY is phased down to zero

All levels are examples, the DAO would vote in all the levels for APY reduction and increase.

Revenue Share: Simultaneously we offer revenue share so that intrinsic value of Wmemo increases faster. The faster we step through the Wmemo price levels the sooner we can achieve APY zero with no penalty to growth.

Backing Price support previously i was against but a good argument was made that i read that recently changed my opinion. I believe we can support the backing price in two ways; first thru burning all liquidated event tokens. Second, all tokens purchased to support backing price should be immediately burned. This would put pressure on the entry price for any dumpers of the token trying to take advantage of the backing price. The backing price should become foundational and voted on by the Dao in order to prevent repeated attempts at manipulators trying to take advantage of the backing price. This would set the backing price as bedrock and the burn of the tokens will take the price of Wmemo well above that range.

Token Burn We should burn all liquidated tokens after stabilizing Wmemo in a range in order to boost the value of the asset. Best conditions for this burn event should be after Wmemo has consolidated in a range for 7 days with an upward trend bias.

Closing Argument and supporting example The benefit is as the price of Wmemo goes up the APY goes down. Those that hunt APY are not going to leave a protocol if the APY is going down while price goes up. The individual sees the value their tokens are gaining while seeing the protocol become deflationary simultaneously. The turns the theory from “The prisoners Dilemma” to a value interpretation. This removes the Ponzi economics, those that hold the asset through the price gains are also seeing their tokens become scarce simultaneously thereby making their tokens more valuable long term.

There are protocols that have benefitted from low APY, but these protocols have started with low sustainable APY. As a result their price has been with a stable predictable range and has achieved excellent protocol stability and growth. Atlas USV Universal Store of Value on Polygon is the best example with over a billion in market cap while having only 108 addresses! APY has been roughly 169% from the beginning, however because it never promised unsustainable APY it has never had value flight. It does not use the Olympus Prisoners Dilemma model it uses NETD Nash Equilibrium Token Defense. I have studied this protocol for weeks and even in the most recent market condition this protocol suffered less then a 2% value loss.

The marketing gimmick of high APY was just that a marketing gimmick. Anyone that thought they would receive 1 bazillion dollars in 365 days should seek appropriate counseling because in order to facilitate that goal the token would have to achieve the market cap of the entire global financial system and even then it would not be enough. My solution will keep the value flight from occurring when APY reduces by tying APY reduction to price increase, this has not been done yet in any OHM Fork, let Wonderland be the first to test this theory!

**Explaination of NETD Nash Equilibrium ** Overall Strategy (NETD) - Atlas USV

Business and/or technical requirements of the implementation of the proposal:
Change the output of APY from a staking model to a price gain/retraction model

I would like to see this added either to any of the existing proposals or actioned on separately as its own separate snapshot. I dont care about taking credit, i just want the protocol to have long term sustainable health and viability. As long as you promote the agenda and the vision of this proposal you can take the plan and call it your own if your megaphone is bigger then mine and it gets eyes on this.

  • Agree with this plan, make a part of any of the mature final proposals being considered, or make its own separate proposal
  • Disagree with this proposal

0 voters

2 Likes
2

Yes. I strongly believe the APY/rebase model SHOULD be kept. It’s a HUGE marketing tool that helped the project build a $1BLD treasury in 4 months and push the project to nearly $9000 price. I also believe using a model to what you describe + adding revenue share is a the way to go.

There’s no point in ditching something that is ALREADY PROVEN to work.

Keep the APY/rebase model.

3

definitely not!

Didn´t work for OHM, won´t work for WL either.

4

The problem is without a phased plan whenever an apy cut happens the price crashes in rebase tokens. Klima, Hector, olympus, many others. When their is a protocol created apy cut its always the wrong time for someone. Bew geowth runs to competitors and existing new buyers are with less then 2 months in the protocol go underwater.

This proposal tues all cuts to asset price increase so to control the depth of cuts but also to incentivize buyers to remain with plasset price appreciation during the cuts.

Fact is apy has to be controlled at some point. Its marketing but its also happening, just check zapper.fi we are receiving tokens. The cost for 1 Wmemo is beyond 70 whereas a 3 weeks ago it was 57.

5

I was always for keeping the APY as long is necessary untill this project would be well established.We should have this discussion maybe next year.
However, people who started saying that the APY isn’t working are completely imbecile or hired Fudsters and sadly whomever believe them aren’t the most smart tools in the box.
Example 1.
Now I got nearly 6 Time and if I sell my Time now I will have slightly more than how much my Wmemo worth.
So far the rebase workt well.
What we need is

  1. Lock the investment whenever people unstake earlier to sell can redeem only versus Mim and a burning-redeem function added on Wonderland.
  2. Burning periodically Time and Wmemo sold back once the Treasury realises more income.
    Actually the profit share can be evenly distributed when tokens are burnt and supply lowered this gives you anyway a higher price on Wmemo and Time.
    Profit share must be channeled 50-50 towards keeping supply down and shared profit among the Frogs.
  3. All Wmemo bought back by SIFU must be burned by transferring that liquidity on Avax and Fantom liquidity pools.
  4. No more minting,no leverage,no buying back.
    The price will raise naturally when
    1.Supply is keept down
    2.Sells off limited to an open window when the staking contracts are over in order for the team to be able to tackle down this.
  5. Overall stability into the community
  6. Keep the APY
    5.List Time and Wmemo on more exchanges
    Kucoin, Okex ,Cex.io are achievable targets on short term
    Is possible to get listed on Binance this why we need to keep the APY to attract more investors to grow the numbers of token holders.
    After we get listed on these main exchanges
    Coinbase cannot ignore us. We’re on Coinbase we exist amongst the top crypto projects , speaking about Wonderland Time and Wmemo same as Matic,Quant etc is a big step forward.
    Now trying shaddy proposals from a Shaddy Professor which no one’s know this won’t make you big in Crypto. Scrapping coins that already had traction in some good exchanges this isn’t the solution either.
    Best let the things how they’re.
    Do not give anything to anyone as Rage quit solution.
    Who wants out has this option
    1.Unstake
    2.Unwrap
    3.Connect wallet to Sushi swap
    4.Approve transaction
    5.Fuck off
    6.Easy no? Why should we endlessly debate this why should anyone make more than they fair share mostly when you want to pull out.
    No.
1 Like
6

I don’t disagree. The apy does work. However my concern is if we dont control the apy someone will come along and try to push to eliminate it entirely by decree (professor proposal) and if that were to happen it would send the price of Wmemo into a exit spiral as new growth heads to the next protocol offering high apy. Thereby leaving those who recently invested underwater and hoping for the price to increase at some point so that they too can exit, creating again sell pressure upon breakeven.

I hope my proposal isnt misunderstood. I am pro apy and anti elimination of apy unless the price is increasing. If the price is increasing and apy is reducing simultaneously because the two barometers are tied together it becomes a perfect world for both camps. Can we sustain high apy? Not forever but while supply is still low sure. However we are sittong at about 1.1 million stakes. Olympus became exponential at around 2.6 million staked, that was the point the growth became significant enough where rebase sellers were pocketing easy on exiting positions because the token no longer held value as selling became more preferred than holding.

We can reduce the problem by lowering the apy upon entering certain price ranges so that we are not inflating Wmemo at an exponential rate and likewise new buyers are never underwater. If price drops apy goes back up to cover new buyers. If price rises new buyers win as the price of their token rises. Everyone wins, you can enter and exit and be the least concerned with your entry price.

This is what i am trying to acheive with the proposal.

1 Like
7

Yes perfectly agreed to you. We need to unite forces and making this pass further you have all my support and I try to share with everyone.
We should have a Telegram channel as well that pro Apy members to gather and unite forces and ideas.
Apy has only one purpose
1 Incentives, capitalisation and reward for the Pioneers or early adopters. You cannot take this from us as is our rewards versus our risk is that makes sense.
I said before burning mechanism is a must as you need to bring the supply down to increase the price and yes I agree once the price increases you have to reduce the Apy significantly.
There have to be steps taken and healthy administration of this project by us the community that we know bit more about this ok?
I strongly suspect that Professor isn’t a crypto person is a hedge fund man that tries to buy a brand for his filthy rich customers and trying to convince us the small investors about hedge fund shite that doesn’t work not when we’re 90% down want to scrap Time and it’s listings from exchanges and so on.
Profit share would benefit only the whales the rest will get pennies.
So no we need to keep this going for a year see what’s the situation then.
We cannot take decisions like from next week that’s it come on.
Wmemo I never liked and honestly doesn’t make any difference. We could had Wrapped Time and that would do with same properties of Wmemo.
Trying to keep a coin to 100k above is a bit suicidal when instead we should give more proprieties to Time token and trying to improve the project who had more traction.
However yes let’s do this instead trying to pass this proposal and then we could work upon it more.

1 Like
8

Get the word out. Lets get some votes and views so i can push this to RFC. Then after I can push to WIP. I will have enough Wmemo to push to snapshot soon so if you can get people to vote and view i can push to snapshot.

9

I did on Discord .I discovered that people don’t know yet that they’re the DAO themselves.Cost me some explication to explain them and mobilise them.
There are a lot of people outside the decision.
You need to make a Telegram chanel or Discord.
On Reddit they banned :no_entry_sign: me though we need to reach out to more people

10

I have its on the discord under:

APY plan when Wmemo price rises APY falls

I actually had great convo recently with someone on the subject

11

The barrier ive been hitting with people are a lack of education on how things function as well. Everyone has a mouth, few have a brain unfortunately. But im trying to get them to understand the pros and cons of apy and when it is good and when bad. Apy is a great backstop, protects you from downside. However few actually care to educate instead they spout and regurgitate what they have been told.

I have been in quite a few rebase projects, APY has protected me from downside everytime, until i learned to realize my gains early. Put in my desired weekly outcome early and take my gains weekly. Realize the gains and you never lose you can pull out your original investment inside a month.

Apy goes sour after growth goes exponential. That is typically when certain addresses have exponential growth they can dump on the community, or roughly after 6 months in the protocol. This is when conditions are made for calls to cut apy. No one has yet tried to cut or increase apy based on the price of the token. The apy has been generalized to percentage staked in every fork.

If you base the apy on price action whether up or down to remove the desire for new buyers to exit when apy drops, rather they would see the benefit of exisiting token appreciation in value and settle to take the rise in price bs jumping into another high apy promise that has no plan for stabilization.

12

I agree :100: now what we need to work on is actually how we produce the rise in our token price.
We been trapped in a very akward situation truly is hard to conceive that 90%of panic sellers where in the point when actually the coin dropped 90%from initial Ath and really didn’t stopped either. The No vote changed quite a lot of things as now Time and Wmemo even are down are bit more stable.
We took a really big hit on the market you agree that we need to capitalise more in our Time bags untill we could break even .
Have you thought at the ways of keeping the supply down?
Obviously reduccing the APY would slow down the minting but not necessarily will put the supply down is a good start but what I’m saying is that we need to cut both token supplies (Time and Wmemo) from somewhere to allow APY and cutting progressively while the prices goes up.
APY is good only temporarily as long is sustainable mostly helping the early investors to build them bags for future trades.
You cannot keep it forever just look at Titan where even that twat of Marc Cuban lost big he said he got out lol :joy:.
Everything with the proposal is absolutely fine now what I need to know is what burning mechanisms you thinking to implement ?
I made some suggestions of course but yes I really would like to hear your pointview in regards to this matter.

13

So we have alot of liquidated tokens that are supposed to be burn. We need to make a formal proposal to burn those after we address the backing price or “rage quits”. I am not a fan of rage quit. And my perspective changed a day ago on the backing price having read an interesting perspective. So i am pro supporting the backing price again but only if what the dao purchases to support backing is immediately burned as well to prop up price beyond backing.

So if we support the backing price and we burn the liquidated tokens we should then implement revenue share. Revenue share will put value in the token. The value then transfers from a treasury based value proposition to a token based value proposition.

14

I just edited the proposal to include my plan for backing price and token burn.

15

Burnig the tokens that are redemeed but there must be paid at the market price unless is a buy back somewhere and blocking Wmemo sales on Sushi or When unwrap memo for those who want to quit just burn that too along with Time and make it redeemable in MiM only.
These moments are expected by whales and speculators and many will want to quit hoping will take big profits and the token will crush.In order to avoid this.

  1. Temporarily block of Wmemo sales on Sushi
    2.For those who unwrapping memo during rage quit that token should be redeemable by Mim only against token burned.
    Burn phase won’t stop the Avalanche of sell off which don’t forget the panic element that would contribute to those days due to the FUD that would be created.
  2. Locking up staking contracts fairly as continuity of previous time of staking.
  3. possibly to submit support tickets for people who lost funds by being hacked for investigation.
  4. Create extra security measures of the platform not only of our wallets as Wonderland needs to ensure minimum security measures.
    Wonderland doesn’t have any minimal security measures as must be created a wall that would impeded a hacker that took over a wallet to take funds from the platform.
    Wonderland must ensure that a 2fa is linked before opening the app ,a password system and possibly to connect a Yubico key.
    We can argue that due to poor security measures accounts had been hacked many we lost money including I.
    Would never argued this if Wonderland were more secure as whatever’s took from my wallet is on my end then is my responsibility now the argument is whatever was took from their end well they have to answer , make responsible investigate and pay fairly as under a replacement of initial tokens at the moment of the hack
    Creating a safer platform with a good customer service is a plus that would boost more investors.
    Profit share must be combined with APY must be redemable for those who staked for minimum one year continuously.
    Would incentivise token holders vs long term benefits.
16

I agree with all. Im indifferent on the rage quit. I can be persuaded but i cant see the rage quit as being as effective as a well planned and organized back price support. If we support backing everyone wins, the ragers get an exit and once they in fact exit those tokens can be purchased and burned to further support the support ranges above backing price.

I agree with your points 100%. I will take your points and add to the proposal. Its going to be TLDR for many so i will remove some of my proposals justification points in order to shorten the brevity. Once i have made the changes we can tag team it and try to get as many eye balls as possible on the proposal, what do you think?

1 Like
17

Absolutely mate no worries I’m working pen and paper too thinking possible moves trying to get the best I can.
We can merge every good idea you made a point that coincides with points I made previously.
I’m absolutely happy you considered my proposals.

1 Like
18

We got to get people voting and liking, so we can push this thing thru all the levels to get to snapshot.

19

I’m waiting for some people to vote tonight for this hopefully they’ll do

20

Keeping the APY/rebases is a great marketing tool, indeed. If controlled correctly, it can bring a TREMENDOUS profit to most of the investors here.

Same with the backing price. A system must be created in order for it to work properly.

And it can be done, definitely.