I agree with most of the suggestions and as this is the best solution ive read so far I agree with proposal
The problem with the proposal is THE NAME! Professor is not looking for work he/she has a job. Yes, I like the professor’s proposal but this can’t go anywhere as it is.
EXACTLY.
fully agreed!
All things considered, Wonderland will move from a collective VC fund with insane potential in the crypto space to a boring multi-farm yelding project. Not cool. Good proposition for newcommers at wMEMO sub 20k, a nightmare for those with long-term bags.
The best proposal out there by far.
3 Likes
I like the proposal, but I don’t see any kind of privilege in the future of Wonderland for the Frogs who are now 90% down.
We need some Love!
2 Likes
I agree if this include whom where liquidated below backing price. It was a promise of the ex CFO to do it. This its essential if we want to recover the trust on Daniele and Wonderland Team
This is a very solid plan
A balanced proposal that could satisfy many of the requirements of members of all wallet sizes. The only condition I would request is some transparency on who ‘The Professor’ is, if they’re to be involved in the future of this family. Anonymity is ok for an Investor, but not acceptable for Management.
1 Like
the professor wrote “Bring in an Investment Director or experienced M&A consultant to handle and hunt down investments for the protocol. Build a portal for the Wonderland community to submit investment proposals, as we can use our community for scouting opportunities.”
that’s why i thought frogs will become VC.
BUT, the professor might focus yield farming than VC.
i agreed your point a little bit.
frogs must modif OUR new proposal from the professor’s.
2 Likes
Couple of comments.
-
What is up with the no more than 20% revenue share. That seems like too small of a cut to really make holders happy and attract new investors. We need that explained.
-
We need to identify the order we do this in. This is comprehensive but there are definitely dependencies that require us to do some things before others. On top of that there are priorities that people want sooner rather than later.
This part could get messy if we don’t have leadership pushing back on the community to tell them why something is unrealistic. As a project manager I 100% see this as a problem we are about to hit. We can use the discord mods as stand-ins to disemminate the direction for now and I’ll do my best to call out unrealistic expectations when I see them. We’ll get through this together 
2 Likes
very solid elaboration that I read here. Thanks a lot for this. I agree 100% for it.
Extremely strong proposal - well thought through and well written. Would get my support as an investor willing to stick it out for the longer term to see if we can turn this around.
1 Like
Maybe there is the possibility that the frogs who have been invested for a long time will be rewarded with a bonus. This reward would also have to be held for at least 30 to 60 days.
1 Like
I agree 100% revenue share should happen and should be paid in stables. Understand though the value drop had nothing to do with apy and everything to do with sifugate. The whales began exiting early because they had advanced knowledge.
Now i agree apy should be reduced, it is unsustainable at “80,000” and again i also know that the apy value is pretty much marketing gimmick. However, as i have mentioned every dao that said we are going to cut apy price did not go up it went down 50% to 75% because people will just run to the next fork promising apy its a fact. Look at the most recent example with hector dao. Hector dao is a very well run project, they cut apy and price dropped from low 50 dollars to 10 dollars, even though the cut is good for the community as i keep saying apy is heroine. It has to be reduced as price goes up as a double positive, that is the only way you dont scare off the apy junkies.
If apy is cut because i know history, i would simply exit and wait for the bottom and jump back in because the price will fall it always does not a single example of it not falling with arbitrary reductions. But if the apy reduction happens because the price of wmemo goes up then no one is looking at apy reducing they are looking at the value of existing tokens increasing because price went up.
Far as revenue share that should be top priority.
This proposal is overall great and has lots of good ideas and in general is a good path forward, which is why I was shocked by “#6 No Leverage” which is one of the dumbest takes I’ve seen from what appears to be in a well-thought-out article.
First off all Wonderland doesn’t own Abracadabra or any other protocol. We have no power to stop other projects from offering loans, leverage, options, futures, etc. It blows my mind that someone with seemingly so much knowledge would have such a bone-headed take. This is free market capitalism, you can’t stop people from doing what they want with their assets, once that wMEMO is in their wallet they will do what they want with it and you certainly can’t stop other projects from developing what they want to. Not to mention you can’t stop people from doing stupid or risky things, ‘huh life finds a way’.
What we can do is use incentives and nudges to encourage people to stake their token on our platform instead, which you already covered elsewhere in your article.
Full disclosure I only leverage stable coins, so removing leverage on wMEMO doesn’t directly effect me either way.
Exactly, draw them in with the apy. If they dont get apy here they will go somewhere else, reduce apy as price goes up. Keep them with the revenue share.
How do we get this into RFC stage?
1 Like
I think we’ll try to have it up for RFC somewhat soon-ish.
Trying to figure out what is the best way to do this given that the professor didn’t put his proposal here and isnt there to take comments from the RFC.
Also need to organized the similar proposals together for a vote instead of having 5 votes for the same topics.