I’m sure I’m not the only one consistently seeing comments from newcomers (or trolls deliberately trying to mislead everyone) in Discord and Social Media asking whether Sifu sold or Dani dumped when there’s large positions of TIME being sold.
As a mechanism to prevent this, I would propose that those who are part of the founding team declare their intention to sell X amount of TIME with 12-24 hours of lead time. This could be announced on Social Media, or on any of the official Wonderland communication methods to get the message out to the widest audience possible.
Here are the benefits I see in having this process in place:
Provides those actively following the project with advanced notice of potential sell moves made by the founders/dev team/anyone affiliated with the project; calming those who would otherwise be worried about them exiting the project.
Allows mods/time cops/anyone else to respond easily to nefarious actors who seek to mislead everyone.
Adds another layer of legitimacy to the project given the full transparency the user community could expect regarding the intentions of the founding team.
Further reinforces the level of trust the community would have in the founding team. Do any other meaningful crypto projects have this place? If not - this could be another point used to encourage growth of the project to those who are on the fence.
It feels like this would be a quick win with minimal impact as it’s been mentioned that the Founders are all independently wealthy already, so they generally wouldn’t be counting on cashing out their positions to feed their families.
Anyway, I’m curious to hear what others think about this proposal!
No they should not have to declare they are taking their pay in fiat it wouldn’t have an effect other than loading the trolls with an official statement the transparency is there for all to see when they make a move but the hard truth is 90% of the current fud is drummed up by rival daos who seem to think there can be only one we shouldn’t make demands of our team to bend the knee to hogwash just my opinion
I see this being a problem the more decentralized Wonderland becomes. Do we decide it based on wallet size? Then it would be arbitrary and not sure how it would be implemented successfully when whales come in or out…
Based on access to the code? This isn’t something even TradFi does. Many companies have teams of programmers. They don’t all have to report their asset sales…
Based on governance? Again, with more decentralization, that will just be us…
Hey, thanks for your perspective. I’d like to dig deeper into a few of the points you’ve raised in your post.
I feel like it would remove any credibility a troll might have. Today, trolls can be somewhat successful due to the lack of communication around these events. Trolls generally have minimal impact on people who trust the founding team, but to newcomers and those who are considering getting involved in the project, there can certainly be an impact. I believe each person who opts out of participating in the project is a net loss to the ecosystem.
That said, do you disagree that this would foster deeper trust between the community and the founding team?
This is an interesting point; it would be interesting to try and understand where this is coming from. I see a difference between the shit-disturber popping into discord or on social media to cause chaos and an orchestrated effort from the competitors. Which do you think is happening?
The purpose of this proposal is definitely not to hamstring the founding team and remove any freedom they have in moving their money around. The idea is to increase awareness to investors about upcoming moves by the founders so that:
Founding team can get ahead of any FUD or offer explanations should they choose to do so.
Investors can decide what course of action makes the most sense for them with this information.
Great points here. Not sure whether this will answer will be suitable to your questions, but I imagine it should be centered around influence on the project. For example, if Vitalik liquidated 100% of his Ethereum position without explanation, I can see that rocking the ETH world. This may not be the best metric and I’d love to hear if there’s a smarter way to approach it; if we even want to approach it at all.
TradFi at least tries to protect the consumers from the executive team liquidating all their assets. These controls don’t exist in crypto so the degree of trust has to be just that much higher.
I personally trust the project and the founding team, but I feel like this could go a long way in building credibility with newcomers and may even tip the scales in favor of Wonderland when comparing it to the tons of other projects out there.
I’m in agreement with your statement and I try my best to not be influenced by random posts on social media. That said, to expect everyone to be so lucid in their decision making would be akin to ignoring recent price action in Crypto.
I’m curious about this position, do you believe that those with inside information about the health of a project/company should be able to liquidate their positions before news drops to the rest of the investors?
I get the intention, but I’d say it would probably have the opposite effect.
If any of the team announces that they sell any amount of their tokens, the fudders/haters will take this and spin it to create even more fud. “WONDERLAND TREASURY MANAGER ANNOUNCES HE IS SELLING”. People would probably try to front run it so the price would tank even more.
Those actively following the project should know why it’s being done and shouldn’t be worried. Sifu is in Discord explaining himself almost every day.
Being done on a daily basis already.
Legitimacy ? Only legitimizes the people calling this a rug pull every time the price isn’t green. Transparency maybe, but the wallets have already been leaked and people can track it.
Not sure if it’s like that everywhere, but also, are they even 10% shareholder (haven’t done the math)? Them selling little by little, gives the rest of the stakers a bit more power every time. Some decentralization purist would appreciate this.
This project runs on the trust for the founding team. That is the only reason why Wonderland has been so successful compared to others. We don’t have a roadmap, our docs are outdated, we have limited communication, we just got a forum, we’re not the only one on AVAX and we don’t even have the highest APY. Other forks have a lot more done in terms of “progress”, but still can’t compete. Why ? Because we have Dani.
Overall, I think this would create more harm than good. We just focus on getting things done to show people that this is real and the haters are just fudding. Actions speak louder than words.
Your point makes sense, and of course the possibility of front-running is inevitable, the same way it probably happened when Elon announced the sale of 6B Tesla stock.
The difference however, is how that messaging is received by holders. I would argue that the price dump would have been significantly worse had holders found out after the fact rather than having been advised ahead of time, as psychologically, people will believe they’ve been burned in that context. This also can turn perception of investors who are neutral to negative. My example of course is not necessarily something legal in TradFi, but in Crypto this can happen easily
Yes, I see Sifu having to explain himself daily and I can imagine that this is distracting and burdensome. Thus, getting ahead of that via advanced notice empowers others to redirect those with genuine questions to the official communications and kills credibility to those with bad intentions. The same way we today redirect noobs to the #start-here and #resources channels.
Mods are doing good work as far as I can tell. They are responding and dealing with these people as best they can. That said, shutting down FUD goes beyond banning someone from Discord. The idea is to empower them with facts and official communications to alleviate the concerns from the silent majority. If fudders manage to scare off newcomers, they’ve succeeded.
I should have clarified in this point that I’m focusing on the perceived legitimacy from the standpoint of someone new to crypto or new to a project. But I get what you mean that this can be a double edged sword in the sense that if Sifu announces his sale today and price drops by 2k in 2 days, you can expect the same fudders to use this to support their position. I figure that it’s better for this to be announced ahead of time rather than people discovering it after the fact and having to ask questions to find their answers.
Someone with more experience than me could probably correct the record here, but I don’t think that rule applies strictly to those holding 10% or more. The way it’s written, it seems to include directors, officers and shareholders who hold more than 10%. Directors/officers being influential individuals or those with information not made public. Either way, the idea isn’t to copy TradFi, but we can leverage existing regulations as inspiration to find the right path forward on a project we’re all invested in.
I agree and while this could be assessed in a separate post in itself, I believe many of those who did research and chose to invest did so in part on Dani’s good name (I’m one of them). Due to this, Wonderland is afforded a much more generous grace period than other projects on Dani’s reputation alone, but I can imagine that this will only carry us so far.
The project needs to be enticing to newcomers and the points about the roadmap, etc. are likely going to become difficult to explain if the details aren’t shared.
I respect your opinion and your points are sound. For what it’s worth, this proposal is not a deal breaker on my side, but I feel like the idea has merit and is worth discussing.
I appreciate you taking the time to write out these responses and providing your perspective. This is how we’re all gonna make it
I don’t think this is a good idea. It reinforces the neurotic/paperhands idea that the project’s ongoing value somehow relates to what Dani n Sifu do with their personal TIME. It really doesn’t. I don’t honestly care what they do with their TIME. Critics are just pushing for changes to weaken this successful project and I’m not inclined to give them any wins.
Mmmmm this is dificult, in one way this makes sense, if we think about it from a company perspective this tends to happen, just recently elon musk tweted about it and did it because the twitter said “yes” if it said no he probably wouldnt have sold, what i mean to say is that normally for big corporations this things are announced (but not really, they announce it and proceed to do it, if you missed the info ah! its on you).
the reason i have issues with this is bacause the lead team its them, for sure, but they wont make any decisions without the permision of the DAO aka US, they will only make moves when they have the power we give them in the first place (since now they let us have some sort of government participation here) this makes them one of us in some ways! and i feel that if we were to implement this we might as well implement it on everyone else really whales dolphins little fish or whatever frog you wana be, i dont doubt the intention behind this proposal but i have to say NO. i would like it to be fair for everyone, including them, if its the treasury its one thing, if its their own wallets and money i would say no, since everybody should be able to do whatever they want with their investments, including them.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the concept of a DAO, but I don’t think the comparison to disclosure of insider buy and sells holds water. I understand the DAO as an electronic replacement of a corporation via code. Wouldn’t it need to be implemented in the contract rather than have some kind of public ceremony? Why limit it to just the founders. Lots of discussion has been happening on large wallets jumping in and out and creating price movement. Clearly, Founders aren’t the only ones who can do that. People should be free to move their property as they see fit and take the consequences that go along with them.