And we are back to the drama. Folks this will be my last post here. I sold off all I held and staked it elsewhere. I’m off to make a profit finally. Wish you the best with this downward spiral
Ciao!
2 Likes
I was wondering who wrote most of this formal inquiry. Your question and the language used here make it clear it was your writing Appreciate what you are doing and have done for WL.
Lets hope our current treasury personelle are half as articulate and professional as you (and honest).
1 Like
Currently Daniele and Yieldchad are proposing strats, there is no treasury personelle other than that.
To be functionung at all the failsafe council of Head mod and mods was established to vote on these proposals (not put up their own, nor control what is proposed) and then the multisig executes these strats.
1 Like
Some comments on AMA and Written Responses:
-
The Multi-Sig setup is outright inadequate, and I have heightened security concerns with cross signing address risks. There needs to be a significantly better multi-signature process, with no single “group” having any majority as well.
-
Convex Bribes settlement - I’d argue to have installments. Have a partial payment now as a sign of good faith.
Will think of more later…
2 Likes
While I am good with most of Daniele’s answers, I am not satisfied with the multisig situation and Daniele’s explanation about it. I am a fan of doxxed personnel, but I respect the wish of some people to remain anonymous. So I suggest at least a few informations about the holders of each multisig address:
- any form of identification: full name, nickname on twitter/discord or at least a statement, that this person does not hold any of the other multisig address
- how they got on the list, maybe “founding team member” or “elected by the DAO”
- portion of the world, where they live in, at least divided by the 3 main world regions (America, EMEA=Europe-Middle-East-Africa, Asia-Pacific) - may also good to be known due to timezone issues
- what’s their job/duty within the dao
- do they have signing rights on other protocols
I don’'t want to see persons who hold multiple addresses (on the sig) and I don’t want to see addresses accessed by multiple persons.
Preferably I suggest a formal process of KYC each other on the multisig or KYC by a trustworthy third party (maybe an audit firm)
This is why I voted “no” - although the majority of topics would get a “yes” from me.
Onkeljoe
3 Likes
so literally watching orphan positions dangle in the wind during a Category 5 hurricane.
should maybe quote the “other than that” part as well 
@TheSkyHopper Yeah. The way Dani explained the proxy wallet, and how that wallet has been used, brought up additional concerns, imo.
That’s a great suggestions for the bribes. It would definitely be a great way to get the ball rolling with confidence on that issue.
This would be important to me. I hadn’t thought about this - great idea.
This also seems so logical. So much so that it’s surprising we have to ask for it.
I see where you’re going with this. This should help with operational efficiency.
I think this is similar to #2, although different, as this wouldn’t apply to signers not technically working for wonderland, like Nikita. Still useful
I wish I’d thought of this phrasing before. It really gets to the point of “are they associated with any other protocols?” - that questions is fairly vague, but your suggestion is very unambiguous.
I think this is a sticking point for many members. Unacceptable, imo. It defeats the purpose of a multi-sig.
On the call we’d discussed KYC to the other signers and then all signers KYC’d to a third party. Dani recommended a US based lawyer who has an agreement with the DAO to pursue a rogue signer immediately if required. I’d be game for that.
The challenge here goes all the way back to pre Sifu-gate. Dani has consistently shown himself NOT to be a proactive communicator. Marketing plan? Nope, just gonna wing it and go unhinged/unchecked on Twitter. Clear details of any investments made? Nope, just trust the ‘Frog King’ has our best interest at heart- we’ll sort out the dirty details of airdrops and buybacks etc later.
I bought 50 K into this project purely on faith and Danielle had quality character. At this point Sifu has proven more dedicated to this DAO than Danielle. Danny has consistently shown no direct interest in following the DAO protocols AND WIPS when they are an inconvenience or antithetical. I would prefer to just stop the theatrics and part ways. Even the person he touted for WL TM has concerns (SkyHopper).
I hate to come to that conclusion but at this point I’d have to logically, unemotionally, remove Dani and the other multisigs in favor of all DAO installed, doxxed, personnel.
7 Likes
Now Community voted!
Have to agree. I think time to have vote to have Dani become community member only. Can still contribute a lot. But no leadership.
- Change multi-sig. Make it fair and not just one party.
- Vote to remove role and title from Dani. Co-founder = ok, but nothing else special.
- Have a open discussion with people to see how to move forward. I think 1 and 2 are done, then WL can become good place to be.
Peace.
1 Like
Man he getting high af and not thinking about the holders. He already got the sig. he doesn’t need anyone’s approval 
Personally, I would like to see some resolution or discussion of the primary issues facing wonderland through a few follow up questions. These include the following:
Multisig Questions
How do we balance the multi-sig and ensure transactions are signed quickly? What do you feel is a reasonable transaction time from initiation to execution on the multisig? Is there changes we can make to ensure the integrity of the multisig but speed up transactions?
Checking in With the Community
Building and ensuring community sentiment requires checking in on the discord with members periodically. I understand your not a avid “discorder”, but is it not a reasonable expectation that you should be showing up once a week for a few minutes to discuss things with everyday members? Would this not help eliminate FUD and address any concerns?
Migration to a New Token
You’ve mentioned we need to transcend the DAO and move beyond it as well as migrate to a new token. What does this vision look like? How do we balance the day to day operations and short term goals with this long-term vision? What problems do you anticipate this transition will solve?
Building the Treasury
You’ve made some comments indicating you would like to make changes that grow the overall treasury size, things like enacting redemption penalties. What would be the benefit here to holders? If we are not utilizing our current treasury to its maximum capability, what would more funds accomplish (at least half of our treasury is sitting idle, unfarmed in stables)?
2 Likes
If I may add my two cents here:
The DAOs value derived from:
The community strength itself - does the collection of a community make other protocols want to interact with it? Preferably with incentives? This requires a rather unified, actionable community. This needs “relative” leaders to be present with consistency.
Value of Treasury. If the treasury is strong and expanding, this will also attract members. In doing so, it must be managed efficiently and effectively. As per above, this goes hand in hand with community.
The vision? It’s simple, some iteration of the above.
I think maybe only thought in Dani was to use Wonderland as slush fund bank for Abra.
So no vision for WL.
So no clear answers to your legit questions yo.
Topic closed as Daniele has decided to stop down and give the DAO full power.