[DAO Discussion] Implementation and Integration of Operation Migration [IIOM]

DAO voting has been suffering an immense amount of voting presence. At first, I assumed that this was due to people not caring much and being confident that large holders will take care of the DAO in everyones best interest. With the extreme consequences and implications of the recent RO vote, I decided to dive deep into the rabbit hole regarding the question on how (relatively) small holdings could swing votes that drastically.

Out of the currently 3821 wMemo in circulation, 1079 are still unwrapped as Memo (and 50 as $TIME) spread across over 110k wallets. I haven’t made a thorough analysis on the distribution, but the largest Memo holders sit on 4-6 wMemo equivalent of Memo. If this post makes it into RFC, it will probably be worth it to look at whether even these top Memo holders have any activity on the wallet that is holding them.

I do acknowledge that it has been a headache for the moderation to educate people on wrapping their memo to wMemo and staking it in the farm. However, the fact that all 3 tokens are interconnected becomes a huge problem for multiple reasons. Not to mention that an absurd amount of Memo is still sitting in the rebase contract, which creates another “what if” scenario, even though I firmly believe that the multisig is secure among the current signers.

With that, I am ready to present my proposal for IIOM.

  1. A small budget at the discretion of the Technical Officer will be used to create a video, educating on the past system of staking $Time, wrapping $Memo and staking $wMemo. The latter part of the video will then proceed with with an explanation of what is listed below.
  2. A new token (NT) will be created on a 10:1 ratio to wMemo, meaning 1wMemo=10NT.
  3. On January 4th 2023, after the redemption, token migration month will begin and all farms will be paused until the end of the month and at the same time, the token migration will open. Token migration will remain open for 365 days, until January 4th 2024. During this, any redemption will be calculated on basis of the old backing price.
  4. When the migration window closes, a new backing price will be valid, and tokens not migrated at this point will not hold any value but a nostalgic one.

There is a lot of stuff I might have missed and this is just a first draft. I truly believe this is an important topic to discuss so I hope everyone will be happy to participate with their thoughts. To add, a small allocation depending on the amount of missing migrators could be allocated to those that miss the migration window as some sort of “consolation”, but by doing that, some of those funds may never see the day of light again.

  • I wanna resume discussions on to RFC, but proposal needs major changes.
  • I’m positive resuming discussions on to RFC.
  • I wanna keep status quo.

0 voters

1 Like

I forgot to mention that even after subtracting the Memo and Time equivalent of wMemo, this gives 2692. Given that only 1600 wMemo is staked in the farm, it leads me to believe that far more tokens have been lost and forgotten.

I am on board with this for the main reason I’ll be able to get more voting power without spending all that mula :).

No but seriously, this is a very important topic of discussion and should be addressed before trying to move to far forward. Well said.

1 Like


Main issue imo would be the time limit. This has the indirect consequence of rugging those that don’t meet the deadline.

I think we could achieve something similar without the deadline by having all “essential mechanics” apply to the new token only. Redemption, farm & governance have to be drone through the new token, making the migration the obvious choice.

That being said, the backing value would still be based on the new and old token in order for holders that come later still have their backing.


Just adds a 4th token to the mix and rugs anybody that doesn’t migrate within the time window.
An alternative would be a vote token that can be collected via farm, for example.
Or, as we don’t have rebases anymore we could deprecate wmemo and memo and go back to time as only token.

In any case people that don’t actively follow are in disadvantage if we take away the wmemo farm staking and all other 3 tokens this way.

Not a fan of the idea in the proposed way personally.


There is a solution to the whole “rug” argument. A pool could be created to reimburse anyone that missed the migration window based on the estimate of “lost wallet” vs "set/forget wallet. I will try and map it out and explain the principle behind it.


60% of people migrated, leaving 40% who might show up later. For the sake of argument, lets assume that the treasury is 100MM. A pool of 10MM will be set aside that will allow 25% of those (10% of total token holders) to redeem 1:1 based on the backing price at migration. In this proposal, we make sure to add that, IF the pool runs out (or is close to), we oblige to refill the pool in increments of 5% or another percentage that will ensure that anyone showing up at a later stage will get what they are owed.

Could you please simplify. What is the point of minting a new token? To increase engagement into the voting process or what?


I feel like another token would just complicate things even more. If people are not actively following they won’t see the education video and we will have even less people staked as a result. I believe we would also need a new staking contract for NT, which is not ideal in my eyes.

The idea is good but I don’t see it working.

  1. To increase transparency, calculations on amount of wMemo in circulation is ridiculously complicated at the moment
  2. To get rid of any “what if” on the exploit of the Memo rebase contract, which currently holds the equivalent of over 1 million wMemo
  3. To make it more transparent how many “active” voters there are
  4. To get rid of “lost tokens” but at the same time making sure that no one is rugged

Would appreciate if this could move to further discussion and eventually end up as a vote. I am trying my best to accomodate any concerns and I truly believe the final proposal will have everyone in mind

I echo what Smilbur said, the idea is good but it won’t work in practice based on history. It will only complicate an already complicated token web. Moving the conversation on won’t help if the majority of votes or comments are negative to this idea.


If both you and Smilbur truly believe the idea is good, I think it would be great to try and work on something that simplifies things in practise. Just gotta be creative. You both saying the idea is good points to the fact that we could work on something that is optimal

Im still not sure a side pool is required.

Here’s how I think it could be done.

  1. Do migration to a new token.
  2. Keep redemptions based on new and old tokens for X time, like a long time.
  3. When that time window is passed, do redemptions on only the new tokens.
  4. Those that join after that window of time, just migrate and come in with the new backing. No need to “block” them at the only backing. That way either it goes up or down, they get what the rest gets.

In theory, even if some were to arb the increase in backing after cutting off wMEMO, those that migrate later on should still receive a bigger share of what they had initially as the supply would be lower than what it was at migration.

That way, no one is being rugged of their treasury share and it should be a positive for everyone assuming the project keep progressing.

Obviously this is also not something done in a month or a quarter, it would have to be expended on a long amount of time.


This sounds like the optimal way to go so far. I see it accommodate most of the concerns. Either way, I think and educational video should be worked on, walking people through the history of Wonderland, all the events. Heck, could even clarify the whole Sifu situation to educate people and preventing the occasional toxicity that shows up in the discord every once in a while

1 Like

Begs the question why to do this.
Pick any one of the three tokens we have and go with that one sounds a lot easier than having 4 tokens and deprecating 3 just to make the supply calculation easier.

Right now the DAO has the option to implement rebases again, if they ever decide to, same with minting (for whatever reason, but the option is there). A lot is burned each redemption and none of us can tell the future, I think to keep options vs not is a good argument to not change the system again.

For votes I really like the vote token idea, for example getting them for staking on the farm or any other way to make it possible to gauge activity of holders.


This topic was automatically closed after 4 minutes. New replies are no longer allowed.