I’d be against that approach as well, as it has the same distribution way. Each wmemo in circulation has a right for a treasury share, not just staked users.
I think then the argument will go to whether this approach is fair to those who have not been staked in the Farm. Of course, then it leads to another argument of whether revenue sharing is fair too. I personally think that at least for revenue share, it is still an acceptable compromise considering that the distribution comes from additional revenues generated and quite different from dissolution of the treasury.
What I am having difficulty understanding is, what’s wrong with having the treasury at it’s current size? It cannot be deployed effectively in current conditions yes, but who is to say we wouldn’t be able to in the future? At least we’re not deploying the treasury just for the sake of deploying the treasury. Dissolving and distributing to stakers feels like an easy way for some to get a quick refund.
1 Like
Not even a refund, it’s a quick arb.
Depending on how this is done it’s about as fair as our first rage quit. So big no from me on that.
People that want out can redeem or sell on market, if a solution to redeem at full backing is what this is supposedly about then write an idea for that.
Downsizing just for downsizing doesn’t make much sense to me personally. Used to have a 1bln treasury and nobody was asking to downsize.
Rather bring ideas and strats to the table.
Lets develop something, invest in rl opportunities will be possible with legal changes, expand.
I personally don’t feel this is in the sense of the protocol, nor the holders.
Wonderland is currently an Investment as a Service (IAAS) firm. Wonderland is to seek market outperforming opportunities and stable coin yields to monetise investor’s money.
Outperforming the market meand getting more yield on stables than others, c.q. outperforming BTC/ETH on directionals. Wonderland is live for over a year now. In it’s history - by my knowledge - it did not come close to making a single smart investment decision. Most of the treasury is not even making a yield.
Our only big recent decision was to invest 25m in SV, which lost a lot of value.
So… how do you justify for having a 140m treasury without putting up that ‘your belief is that Wonderland will do better in the future’? Arguments could be e.g. having multiple great investment opportunities in the pipeline, or it could be that similar firms with the same business model as Wonderland has proven to outperform the market and therefore we were unlucky. Thus far I have not heard any of these arguments.
It eventually is up for the market to decide what 1 wMEMO is worth. If no one is willing to give more than 80cts on the dollar of Wonderland, the market decides not to believe Wonderland is able to effectively and safely invest 140m$. Then, as a second, it is up for the wMEMO holders to decide whether they want to wind down a pert of the treasury.
The compensation of WL team members should definitely not be considered as a bribe, but solely as a compensation. I sorry people here see this so. I do think people involved have the right to be compensated, but I admit that I am definitelly not aware what a normal amount is.
I will reduce in to 100k given the consistent feedback on this proposal.
My guy you cant just admit to bribing people wtf…
1 Like
Our SV invesment is up. Unsure how you calculated the “lost a lot of value”. Can you clarify ?
Also, using Wonderland’s past annual performance without the full context of what the protocol went through to say it had a poor performence is either ignorance on your side or simply bad faith to fit your narrative.
It seems like the more you add, the more you make it sound like you are making this proposal because you are unhappy with how the protocol is doing and want out with as much money as you can and not because this is the best option for the protocol.
1 Like
*not…
My bad 
I think from context it can be clear what I meant
1 Like
I do not agree with lot of items that are mentioned in the discussion but definitely would like to know the author’s real intentions. From what I read it looks like the author just wants to get out of WL and try to maximize his returns on the way out. Just looking for an alternate route for quarterly redemption. I hope the author has looked at overall Crypto market in last 1 year and also seen how the community is trying to come together to put forward investment proposals which often hit roadblocks.
Do you think WL can rise back again? If not, you should take your quarterly redemption. If yes, come with a concrete proposal to benefit the community. If this comes to vote, my vote would be a NO.
3 Likes
My initial goal it to recover from my 75% loss from a year ago. I don’t see how this action would help make that happen. I see a this as a road block as I would have less working capital and a significantly smaller wMemo to $ value.
1 Like
A tad unrelated but I just want to inform you that there are multiple ways to make your money back rather than just staking and hope for the best. While our treasury team is doing a great job so far to bring value to our treasury, as a community member you can get rewarded for contributing to the community as well. We have opened a ticket system on Discord whereby you can suggest investment opportunities and if we use it and earn a profit, you will get a cut of it too.
2 Likes
Minor majority (51%) of votes in favor of downsizing, even when the team opposes the proposal
What the team feels about it has no significance. Team will only execute on the DAO’s wishes.
Also, this is only an arbitrary vote to gauge interest, which can be easily gamed by creating new accounts. You can take this to see if you want to spend more time writing a proper proposal to be scrutinised yet again in RFC stage. After which, you’ll have to spend more effort canvassing for votes when it becomes a WIP.
So, ultimately it is up to you as the author whether you want to push this forward or not.
7-8 days of inactivity before yesterday, also post doesnt meet requirements to move forward. Topic closed.