This is a much more comprehensive and expansive set of suggestions and actions compared to the Bastion proposal. This should become a proposal taken very seriously by the management team and also should be seen as an action plan. The professor did mention that he would be willing to play a consultant role as part of the suggestions he described. I vote yes for this “Comeback of the world’s largest and strongest DAO”.
Frog Nation Unite.
Agree that this proposal is quite well thought out and comprehensive. We need to focus on the most important next steps and get them to a vote ASAP. I believe the next step is authorizing Dani and the wonderland team to use treasury funds to recruit a COO, a CFO, and a CTO. We should also vote to confirm Dani as CSO. We need this team in place to act on any of the other items mentioned in this proposal that end up being voted for.
Wen vote? No joke but for me this is an amazing pruposal and needs to be executed yesterday!
Overall, great work on putting together a thorough proposal and covering several the points around governance, tokenomics, rebasing vs. rev share, building out the team…etc
As a similar background to you (the professor) with currently and running several large funds in the alternative Private investment space, there are several other factors that need to be considered around the speed of implementation/change, voting process, DAO vs. non-DAO related activities…etc
Some of these points are mentioned in the the Wonderland 2.0 proposal where as they also did not cover certain other factors that you did. I STRONGLY believe there is a comprehensive solutions to package up as a though out proposal by putting BOTH proposal together vs. voting on one.
My suggestion would be to have both teams/individuals that wrote up the proposal to work together over a group session and combine the proposal as ONE and put that up for vote with the help of a 1-2 other people to help corral (I’m 100% here to support and be one of those individuals) where we can debate some of the details out and set a direction to put in front of all the holders for a vote.
Regarding the Rage quit, I believe there should be a longer lock-up period vs. 48 hours to stabilize the price movement.
Regarding rebasing / APY - I agree that it should reduced, but gradually with some plan. The entire focus of a DOA token is to be a stored value that increases in purchasing power over time and outpaces inflation. One of the problems we need a DOA is to solve (especially for the retail investors) is to provide a consistent appreciating stored of value and return. There needs to be a good balance between Rev share and some sort of yield farming.
As more competition and new product arise, we require constant influx of of new capital and need to make it attractive otherwise we could lower our intrinsic value and long term holder being benefits significantly more is very important.
Background, dox and public notice on the all the executive roles is needed. I understand the strength of the DOA and that should be in place from a voting perspective, but everyone who wants to be part of this project should know who is running day to day which create accountability, credibility and ownership.
This is just a few comments/thoughts I’d like to share and being a significant holder of wMEMO/TIME, I fully support and willing provide a helping hand
Yeah, Love this proposal lets vote already
I believe it’s a great proposal, but I’m not sure about cutting rebases. It’s actually the reason many investors came in. You can do token burns in this case.
I am very much for this proposal
im on, great idea just need to review all the facts to bring at the reality
It won’t require the treasury to buy very much wMEMO on-market to lift the market price back to the backing price, as long as it’s done in such a way that the community can be confident that the support will always be there going forward. Once confidence is restored in the KEY PROMISE, capitalism will do the rest!
Good proposal. Id vote for this as a roadmap. As the Professor isnt actually asking for the job, no need to require him/her to be doxxed.
I agree with the need to drastically reduce APY so token is not rediculously inflationary - but utilising a percentage of fund income to buyback and burn could be designed to be cost neutral with APY token delation.
(Yes aware how pointless that is in actuality, however as the psychology major said several posts back, get the suckers in with APY, keep them with Rev Share).
Yeah but youre not realising 9% roi on your cashed out rebase because the token is devaluing faster.
If the rev share is paid out in stable coins, then just cash out the stable coins.
Most excellent proposal, I think this is the same professor that talked at one of Dani’s Ama’s. And Dani asked him to help. Anywho, we need to vote for this. THIS is a proper evaluation and proposal, don’t let it get away.
I am for reducing apy over time. And if we ever get rid of apy, continuing to use it as a marketing tool during campaigns to pull in new users. For example, for the next 5 days enjoy 80,000% apy again. Although, I am unsure if this will be susceptible to manipulation.
i like the proposel aggre make a vote asap
Very well thought out. Support overall concepts, would like feedback from others well versed in this space.
This is a good proposal no doubt. We should bring it for a vote a soon as possible. We can’t wait for too long. Below you can find my comments:
I believe the best way to move forward with this proposal is to consider two questions:
AND
I’ll be creating a similar post in General Discussion to match my suggestions above, and I invite my fellow frogs to join in bringing attention to that post if you believe it will help move The Professor’s ideas forward. Otherwise, keep sharing this post and bringing attention to it!
There are wonderful ideas in this article but I think it’s too multi-faceted to just vote a yes or no for the whole thing. Maybe the proposal could be broken down into parts when it passes to vote.
Ex. What if you agree to most things but not to move into a new token with a new name, etc. Voting for each part would allow for more accurate solution as to what the community really wants.
A very interesting proposal and I think it should be implemented but the only point that I don’t like is the rage quit.
I don’t think it’s fair to deplete the treasury like that. You made a call. You invested. Either collect your ROI as revenue shares or sell at market value. But opting out doesn’t seem fair to me. Because It’s basically whales who bought at a discount ripping off retail investors who bought at a premium. It’s not their money to take out of the treasury. It’s not just by no means.
Wow, im really impressed! Lets implement all of the professor suggestions / solutions! Im so in love with a revenue share, kill apy and limited supply. Wonderful! Please WL Team push this to vote!!!