Since buybacks below Backing per wMEMO create a net “profit” for Treasury, I could support burning that “profit” amount as a way to ‘redistribute’ that value to all wMEMO holders. Generally the buybacks make me uncomfortable because we are spending precious Treasury and reducing available resources to make new, profitable VC investments. We better be getting a bargain.
2 Likes
Well said.
I Like Option 4!
Burn 50% now, and the rest gradually.
2 Likes
I agree with a burn, most likely option 2 or 4. However, something else to consider in addition:
There is clearly a lot of price manipulation going on as people try to increase their ownership % by sidestepping the spikes, thus causing the price to continually fall back to near backing price where the sidesteppers get back in. This may resolve itself at a future date when those people feel satisfied with their ownership / get tired of selling. However, my concern is the committed holders (particularly buyers at the ATH) that have done 3,3 all the way down without ever sidestepping / selling. Those accounts are contuinually losing their % of ownership due to those who keep manipulating the protocol. As it stands, loyalty is being punished and those accounts are comparitively worse off day by day.
As a result of this, I am concerned that when a price increase comes in the future, whether through the start of revenue share, the CEX listing or a burn such as is proposed here, those same accounts that have been committed so far may feel the need to also sidestep (or cash out entirely) to recover their large lossess, and thereby tank the price so that we’re back to square one. This is not sustainable.
A potential solution to this, therefore, is to reward those committed holders with a wMemo airdrop of an agreed amount, to relieve their pressure to sell during a price increase. It does not need to be a large airdrop, but at least enough to offset the loss of ownership % that they are experiencing due to those who are manipulating the market. Once this has been done, I think we would be on more secure ground, and not only that, it would show that commitment is rewarded. This, I think, would create a more secure foundation for a burn to occur. And whilst some people will still likely sell upon a price increase, it may make a substantial amount of committed holders remain in the protocol and provide some stability.
So, my preference would be a small % of liquidations to be allocated to those holders, with a remainding percentage to then be burned as per one of the options.
tl;dr: Airdrop a percentage to loyal holders, then burn the remainding amount.
40 Likes
Think people like this one the most. Maybe we should make it Option 1. The buzz about the burn could support price.
4 Likes
Should be good to burn all token buy with the backing price ! Less suply !
I vote for the burn as soon as possible. Not later or else this project will be at the price range of dao while having the strongest treasury
1 Like
Dilution has stopped now as new $Time is not being minted. What remains is inflation of $Time but that’s like stock-split, doesn’t matter. On the other hand wMemo is already capped, so what’s this dilution you talk about?
2 Likes
Agreed with the proposal.
Let’s move it forward asap.
1 Like
This is so bad idea.
It would be much better to sell them later on in the form of non-dilutive bonds to gain more treasury.
8 Likes
I would suggest to combine Option 1 and 2, if that would be possible and best for the protocol. Thank you.
2 Likes
This proposal is written before sifu stops the new mint. We dont have dilution now.
Yeah option 4 burn 50% now and then slowly burn.
4 Likes
I really like the option 4 as well. Would like to hear dani thoughts
3 Likes
Burn all buybacks, regardless wMemo total supply , burning of all buybacks will cause price of wMemo to recover quickly after dips. If burning exceeds minting wMemo becomes deflationary.
1 Like
I don’t think burning is a good idea. I partially support the option 4 that we should sell the buyback wMEMO when the price goes higher.
My reason of opposing burning is that we are using our treasury balance to buyback wMEMO. That means if we burn it the treasury is actually losing money.
On the other hand if we sell the buyback wMEMO sometime later when the price bounces back. The treasury can have a gain and it can invest in other projects which boost up the treasury value in the long run.
Remember! The treasury gain would push up the price level of 0xSifu step in. So it should also reward the wMEMO holders that the price floor is going up when treasury gains. Therefore it achieves the same purpose of what people thinking burning should achieve. (I.e. deflation in order to boost wMEMO price)
The schedule of selling the buyback wMEMO can be further discussed.
Option 5: sell all buyback wMEMO in the future with a schedule.
11 Likes
option 4
Let the team decide, they are the smartest in the class in this topic…
3 Likes
I vote for a combination of options 1 & 2
1 Like
Let’s lock up the tokens for a period (say 12-24) months, redistribute the revenue proceeds from those tokens to all non-treasury wMEMO holders.
Save the tokens to be sold as mints for future capital raising
5 Likes
I believe this proposal should take into consideration - if wMEMO will be introducing vesting escrow mechanism to align incentives between holders and Wonderland, such as in Curve Finance. Burning of tokens benefit holders of all categories (including pump and dampers - we should not reward them). I’d prefer to have the rebase to reward holders based on their declared commitment period (locking period), long-term holders are rewarded more than the short-term holders vs all being rewarded with the same % regardless of commitment. That way there is no need to burn tokens, in fact it is better as long-term holders experience deflationary tokenomics (rebase reward more than the average reward distributed), while short-term holders experience inflationary tokenomics (rebase reward less than average reward distributed).
6 Likes