[DAO Discussion] - ve(3,3) Locked Staking + Revenue Share (Alternative to ABRACADABRA Merger)


Manipulative activity of whales and bearish sentiment has contributed to a crash in price of wMemo.

The inflationary Olympus model is unsustainable. Rebases and buy backs should be phased out for investment and liquidity profits from DAO, but this takes time to build.

To create stability, ve(3,3) should be adopted. Locked staking reduces selling pressure. To receive full APY, tokens are locked for 6-12+ months. The longer you stake, the higher APY. Rewards loyalty.

Whales have caused liquidation cascade. Current sentiment is seen by some frogs selling below backing price. Wonderland must take drastic steps to ensure stability for price recovery.

Long-term holders should be rewarded in spirit of 3,3.


Agreed let’s start lock up periods, max 6 months. But the whole time you receive a drip of profit from rev share.


Yes I agree with model, sounds something like the liquid driver…
Yes, the OHM model doesn’t work. Let’s get rid of the 5 digit highly dilutive APY and replace is with a basic staking APY but a higher revenue return for locked stakers.All we need is a locked revenue share and full treasury transparency. Let’s not do buybacks and let the fudsters exit and do whatever… The frogs stay strong, the greedy and fudders can leave.
Let’s not do the merger, some pissed people are asking for refund (ignore the fudsters).


Agreed. This makes more sense.

I agree with this. It would slow the bleeding in the short term and reward long term holders.

1 Like

This is excelant, and then we will see the real frogs come on top.

Great initiative, how about extending it with a diamond hand bonus? If you leave your gains (and autocompound) you’ll get a proportionally larger APY.
If you want to sell all or a portion, the diamond hand bonus starts at 0 again.

You’ll get to see your incentives build up and increasing reward the longer you stake.

edit; would be a variable APY based on % time staked & not withdrawed


I totally agree , otherwise even have our money back it will be difficult

I like this I am all for rewarding those that believe in the project enough to invest, stake and earn. Those that day trade, leverage and such fine but at your own peril.

Sharing posted proposal across discussions…

Here’s another option that has been floated… If there’s rev share of treasury in WL, then each wmemo would receive about $20K/yr annually ($350M/17,500 wmemo).

That amounts to over 50% ROI based on current wmemo pricing.

Additionally, the Rev Share could distribute assets that appreciate in price (eth, avax) and stables (mim). So, that ROI could increase as market increases.

50% ROI of real assets (not just APY emissions) makes wmemo a real asset that can be objectively valuated for cash flow . I don’t know what the market price is for an asset like that is, but in non-defi space you’re talking about 10x or 20x+… either way, it’s definitely much higher than the 2x value it would currently have.

I like this REV SHARE path way better than exchanging the best asset we have (revenue) for project streamlining in ABRA. It may help the dev team reach their goals, but I fail to see how it helps WL investors.


all for this, this will allow those to make back what they invested and potentially more, and will stop the whale manipulation. i will vote yes if it comes to it.

1 Like

Yes 1000%. I’ve been dreaming that we do something like this.

Stakers would mint a Rabbit Hole NFT to signify the time they will spend locked in Wonderland (3 mos., 6 mos., 1 yr, etc). As someone mentioned above, this is closely resembling the Liquid Driver revenue share vault model (which is amazing) in which you can log in every so often and claim a variety of rewarded tokens proportional to your share of the treasury.

Using an NFT lock up could also open up the possibility of selling your “locked” stake in the secondary market, then the stake is not dumped but simply transferred hands (+a royalty on every secondary NFT sale that goes to the treasury)


There is zero proposal of any of that occurring as part of the Merger. Be educated on what you are voting for people.
This is a bad deal.
Dilute the treasury, give 30% away to Dev team, no revenue share…
Bad bad bad

Suggest you scroll up. Thread title clearly states “Alternative to Abracadabra Merger”. Every idea on this thread is assuming the Merger gets voted down.

Have a great day.

1 Like

I think this is a great idea, the true frogs were here for the project and are wanting to invest long term

I was thinking of something like this, I couldnt care less about current price action, and I think the merger proposal comes from all the presure from the paper hands and overleveraged frogs that just want a quick buck and dont care or understand what this project Is about, a decentralized VC.

An important thing that Dani mentioned in the AMA is the treasury audit. If the treasury contents and revenue are public, It will give investors a clear picture of what theyre getting into.
I would like to add the following points to this proposal:

  • Dynamic APY bonus: youll get better APY or revenue shares the longer you’re staked, but not a forced period (you can withdraw at any time losing this bonus).

  • Public treasury dashboard: what Is in the treasury and where It Is invested, and if It Is possible, the expected monthly returns (at least with stablecoin strategies). I think this point alone would solve the selling presure and have a very positive effect on wMEMO price.

  • No collateralized loans for wMEMO on frog nation ecosystem.

  • No more buybacks: it just diminishes the treasury to create artificial price pumps that are only useful to the whales and collaterallized degens.


Agreed. I believe there was another token that implemented the same strategy and it worked out pretty well for them.

1 Like

Should have been done long ago. I remember someone on here arguing over locking periods and saying it would scare off whales. Ok, great. Scare them the fuck off then. All they wanna do is game the system.

This is a better idea than the merger. Stay the course with the original plan.

I dont disagree totally. Locked staking + revenue sharing would benefit. Howevernif we lock staking we would need a way to realize some of the profit via some sort of cauldron so that capital efficiency could be maximized.

I also created a plan and a discussion called an to restore intrinsic value, please read abd leave a note - really trying to express to the community that the problem is a lack of focus not a technical problem.