[DAO Discussion] Defining Dani’s Role at Wonderland

I never saw this idea of merger good. Wonderland is a DAO, Abracadabra is a whole different thing. Makes no sense.

This episode of UST/LUNA and the 57mm isn’t good for holders and for other people that think about investing here. We need a good environment to attract more money to the DAO, frens. This kind of thing can bring the shadow of a “FUD wave” (all over again).

TM should be the main guy to say yes or no of this big transactions.

Just voted “yes”


I completely disagree with all your viewpoints. I suggest you read it all again tbh. also maybe go back and look a the entire governance process for the appointment of sky.


There’s a difference between giving someone a defined role, and getting rid of them completely. I’m not sure if you fully read the proposal, but it’s meant only to outline and define his role—nothing more and nothing less. There needs to be some delineation between roles and job descriptions otherwise there will be “power struggles” and unnecessary disagreements between holders, the TM, Dani, and others. By defining roles and responsibilities it prevents a lot of confusion, disagreement, and distrust that may otherwise fester.


Great initiative. Let’s move this to WIP!


We’d have to go through RFC stage first before it can be moved to WIP with a proper proposal.


Rules are only as effective as their enforcement. I think what’s lacking in this discussion, is what are the checks/balances and consequences if said roles and duties are being overstepped.

Of course, in real life there are laws and legal avenues but these are mostly non-existent in crypto. I’d like to bring up a discussion on having perhaps a three-strikes policy, where whoever that have a defined role in this project should be put to a mandatory vote of stay/remove after 3 infractions of their duties and responsibilities.

I can foresee of course that there are going to be certain instances that fall within a grey area so we’d have to consider who’s going to be judge and jury should such instances occur.


I’d say the jury be all Mods or community but not core team because of conflict of interest.
But there needs to be some teeth to violations I think 3 strikes is too many. I say 2.


Edited your post to be more civil.
I think I captured the essence of it.


No one is fighting the merge in this proposal. We have yet to receive any details of said merger. This proposal is to have safeguards and responsibilities in place for our elected officials in the ‘meantime’.

A merger could be as great as you’re saying but we’ll cross that road when it comes.


For those that have informally voted no, what are your concerns regarding the proposal?


Like, then what stops Dani? He has multi-sig? TM also working with Dani? Multi-sig needs to change.

To make limits, need real stuff to back it up.

  1. Change Multi-Sig
  2. Have a redemption or rq process so people can get out
  3. Have more rules - the governance is a joke.

I am a newb in crypto an investments so cant say much about technicality but definitely since I am in WL, december, it seems clear how much Dani has no interest to “make WL great again”.

Just voted yes.


I fully agree with @0xFry , Daniele needs to be kept in check. I wanted to turn off the last AMA when he spoke about merger just like that again. This conflict of interest needs to be solved and I don’t think funds can be used just as he wishes and pleases. TM may have full autonomy of the funds, however with a multisig that is known. I would like him to continue proposing ideas to improve WL and also to seek further investments.

Did Daniele comment anywhere about his actions?


If the TM not full control - the TM also not motivated - sometime. Especially if trades he doesn’t make lose money.

How can merger even happen? Abra is one more bad liq away from REKT.


the point of a multisig is so many people have to have a concurrent say. as long as no one is making unilateral decisions with our treasury funds i think we will be ok.

that said the dao should be appointing a portion of the multi-sign holders and up the count from 3 to 5 or more.

I’m getting a little fed up with him trying to come across as some kind of little person saviour, whilst all the time operating with some kind of god complex.
This is our money, not his, and I whole heartedly vote yes to the restrictions.

1 Like

Move to RFC. Dani’s role needs to be defined, if he fails on his agenda to merge Abra with WL we will either need to remove him from WL or define his role.

RFC is being drafted by OP. Will be posted once ready.

Post has been approved for RFC: