Incentivizing everyone to stay in wonderland (rage quit vs. no rage quit etc.)

I am leaning toward a yes vote on the professor proposal to save wonderland. However, what seems to continually divide shareholders is whether or not there should be a “rage quit” option. I know many people are tired of fud and are on edge about what they think is the right way to allow wonderland to move forward, so they might be quick to negatively react to any new proposals, but this will be a short read, and I believe it can solve the “rage quit” dilemma:

Compensate all shareholders the difference between backing price and current market price with stable coins. Those who still choose to leave the project may leave, but I believe this incentivizes everyone to stay invested in wonderland.

I heard Dani say in AMA that he plans to pay those who were liquidated under him with his own wallet, but if he chooses to do that, everyone else who was NOT liquidated should be compensated with stable coins using funds from the treasury.

This proposal only addresses the “rage quit” option dilemma.

I can revise this proposal as it receives more feedback from the community and possibly move it forward to a vote.


Whatever Dani does with his wallet is his business. I don’t care if he compensates people who were liquidated with his own funds but this absolutely should not come from the Treasury funds.

I guess my only thing is I think it’ll incentivize people to leverage more but I think people will do that anyway because by nature people are greedy and it’s basically impossible to stop leverage so as long as people aren’t being compensated from the treasury then I’m fine with it.


Buybacks are normally paid back from the treasury anyways. And investors who wanted to cash out and leave might be incentivized to re-invest in wonderland and that money could go right back into the treasury.

Ah I see where we differ then. I don’t think they should do buy-backs right now, I don’t think they should have a “backing price”, I think it’s a disingenuous metric to display.

I think they should take a beat from everything and think of a plan for bringing on a team of people to manage the treasury and not move too quickly. Invest the treasury and then allocate something like 15% of the revenue to buying and burning wMEMO, 10% to the treasury and then 75% to the holders of wMEMO. And as an incentive, they should disburse bonuses in wMEMO based on performance of the treasury.

1 Like

I agree in principle but think that danny made some assurances about backing that must be honoured. As a long time frog I bought more when it got below the backing as Danny advertised it as free money and assured a chance to get out at backing. I think going forward (2.0 or professors) this should be altered but I do think there should be a opportunity for those to get out at backing who are done with the project as that was promised. This also would increase market price and while it would decrease overall treasury it would not alter the backing per coin so just creating a more exclusive DAO with less Wmemo in circulation.

Everyone took a “beating” by the fact that people leveraged and got liquidated. And those who got liquidated argued it is because devs did not keep wMemo above the backing price. The professor proposes to end leveraging for at least 6 months.

Anyone who leveraged took a loan out against their assets, I don’t care if Dani and Sifu said it was safe to set leverage at or below backing, you take personal risk and therefore responsibility whenever you leverage your position…

The fact is that it was a lack of critical thinking on the parts of the people leveraging that caused them to get liquidated. They blindly trusted someone who they barely knew and one person who was anonymous… again lack of critical thinking. It’s 100% their fault.

Only way I would stay invested was if there was a payout to make me whole again from where I started , then I would stay . My investment went to crap when all these insanity started . So rage quit or payout revenue share immediately then I would consider staying .

1 Like

This is a very valid option. Give the investors a choice to stay or go. This option may entice some people that were thinking of opting out to possibly stay if they can get some compensation upfront.

The true win-win rage quit option should be based on the initial purchased dated price, not a fixed buyback price, therefore the whales won’t be able to raid our treasury.

Most of the long holders who wish to exit are small investors, the total of their initial investment would be a small fraction compared to the total payout to whales with fixed buyback.

So, would you rather let whales raid our treasury with buyback or let them exit according to purchased price? No more no less!

1 Like

I think the backing for this agreement should be set around 50k. If whales try to ape back in before this proposal is passed, that would only raise the current market rate and therefore lessen their compensation. anyways. Also, if they push market price to 50k, we would not need to pay out since value would be restored. The most value to be gained is simply waiting for the stablecoin payout, and then everyone can decide what to do with their assets.

Please review my discussion as an option to increase the potential of a safe “Rage-Quit”

I like this. Would vote for it if it was proposed.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.