I really like this proposal. Action oriented, smart, simple and built on the original ideas of WL. I like WL 2.0 as well (lots of work went in to it) but it feels like a step back towards Olympus and the way they work.
How do we move this fwd to a vote quickly! We have to get up and start moving fwd.
Daniele has already read it. He will be in touch with the professor as well as other individuals that have made their proposals.
He mentioned in on the AMA today.
The best way to move forward in my opinion is to select the best options and strategies from all the proposals, put the together and vote.
I agree, you cant arbitrarily ‘end’ apy. You have to phase it out. Those that think apy can just end have no reference of history of projects that have done something simular. Every project that just cuts or ends apy in a punative manner the result is negative growth of new addresses while simultaneously price falls by half or more. The problem is apy is literally heroine now, have you ever tried to remove a heroine needle from a addict? You have to incentivize the apy reduction. I have been screaming this as much as i can because i have studied the affects of apy reductions in almost every project. When apy is voted cut or just ended the projects on average all suffer significant price depreciation.
No one yet has tried reducing apy based on price action, meaning as price goes up apy goes down. Its a double positive in the regard because the holder gets an incentive of price appreciation that counterbalances the drop in apy, goes unnoticed because mentally the price has went up.
I studied incentive based behaviors, and how to stimulate desired results with data analytics. I can tell you apy is heroine, the bias of watching a value go up regardless of how you perceive the result is very real. Your brain only sees your token amount go up it doesnt care if your value is erroded.
I am not for high apy, in my opinion sustainable apy is below 10k range, but we have to get their by goals. I proposed dropping apy as an example:
Wmemo price 30,000 - apy 60000
Wmemo price 40,000 - apy 50000
Wmemo price 50,000 - apy 40000
Wmemo price 60,000 - apy 30000
Wmemo price 70,000 - apy 20000
Wmemo price 80,000 - apy 15000
Wmemo price 90,000 - apy 10000
Wmemo price 100,000 - apy 7500
Wmemo price 110,000 - apy 5000
Wmemo price 120,000 - apy 2500
Wmemo price 130,000 - apy 1000
Wmemo price 140,000 - apy 500
Wmemo price 150,000 - apy 100
Wmemo price 160,000 thru 200,000 - apy 25%
Wmemo price above 200,000 apy zero
I think this gives the cut apy crowd and keep apy crowd both a win. Help me push this idea because i believe this works best. I am trying to keep wonderland from making the mistake of punative apy reductions when their is an efficient way to do it that doesnt lose new holders.
This Professor has unmatched insight on Wonderland! He/she should be involved at least in some capacity in making decisions on the way forward with Wonderland.
I prefer this proposal to wonderland 2.0. It seems to be more structured and knowledgeable. What are the next steps? Can we start voting on it?
GREAT proposal, let the whale f*****s exit and let WONDERLAND FINALLY OWNED BY THE FROGS!
all thoughtful, rational and, more importantly, carefully written objectives. ideas can often be great, but they fail to materialize without building the infrastructure. a foundation to build upon. so hire implementers to run with the ideas and flesh out detail. really enjoyed the write-up and i agree with the points. even if you do not agree 100%, it is the most complete vision to date. ideas + structure = win
I think this is the one!
APY does not mean anything, you have to realize that when buying some wMemo (or some time and staking it, which is the exact same thing), you are buying a percentage of the treasury.
WIth an APY of 10000000 or an APY of 0, at the end of the year your percentage of the treasury will still be the same (if wMemo supply is capped). If treasury did 10x in a year and wMemo is trading at backing price (assuming you bought at backing price), your investment value will have 10x as well.
APY is not a shot at a monthly income. Every time you sell some of your new TIME, you decrease the percentage of the treasury you own.
What would actually be a shot at monthly income would be revenue sharing. Distributing a percentage of the protocol farming revenue to the holders of wMemo, this is what was planned before the sifu gate.
I however believe that the distribution should be low at first to focus on increasing the treasury.
I like this proposal over wonderland 2.0, we should move this to RFC
I like this proposal. where to vote?
Does anyone know the professor does he even want a new job? I like his proposal. Everyone seems to think it is this proposal or another one. Changes can be made to whichever one the community likes the best to make a “SUPER Proposal”. Is the professor open to talk with other proposal writers? He dropped a bomb, and I haven’t heard from him. He is very intelligent, and it would be great to have further input.
Big fan of professors proposal.
You are totally correct! APY is definitely not a shot at monthly income.
APY in my understanding is a mechanism that gets your portion of percentage of the treasury you own to you either fast with higher apy or slow with lower apy, but at the end, your percentage portion of treasury remains the same.
And once again you are totally right! Revenue sharing is the only shot to monthly income and this should be our priority and main focus.
Very interesting indeed! What a clever mind with great insight to problems and well articulated solution to solve them.
Well done Prof👏
What I would like to see is a merge of the prof’s proposal and wonderland 2.0.
With a little fine tuning imo, the prof’s proposal and wonderland 2.0 should be the perfect solution to our problems, which the entire frog nation probably agrees on.
Even Dani himself is interested in a merge of proposal.
I think we need to get our house in order before we start making any changes.
This is the best proposal so far.
The article is great, but from a governance perspective, passing all of the points in one proposal could be risky- Just saying to future proof against large proposal bills.
IMHO- break down the proposal by actionable section as per the article, and LFG!
Excellent proposal, obviously written by someone with a lot of knowledge in this area. I don`t agree with all their points, namely the rage quit element, but by far the most insightful and forward looking proposal. Could we be looking at Professor Sifu??
This is pretty big brain and I’m fully in favor.