makes sense to me, go for it
@dcfgod Completely agree with your outlook of trying to solve one issue at a time. And agree that the issue of allowing those to exit who want to exit while ensuring the team keeps their promises is right now the most important issue.
Please take a look at this almost identical proposal. It is suggesting essentially the exact same thing.
There is one key difference… instead of the wMEMO collected from those who exit being burned - I have suggested that these tokens be proportionately distributed back to those who remain in the project after the rage quit window has closed. This effectively increases remaining holders’ wMEMO total balance proportionately to however much the treasury decreases from those exiting. Basically rewarding those who choose to stay in the project.
Why don’t you and @LetsDeFi join forces on this? It feels like having 20 proposals that suggests the same just serves to divert attention and ultimately pull people in too many directions. Combining the two could really bring more attention to one focused effort.
You can’t possibly be this dense. The protocol offers a backing price and should honor it. Why worry about a negligbile amount of the treasury being redeemed and risk dampening the reputation of wonderland further.
This is a great proposal
I wholeheartedly support think and also think the added benefit it would have of correcting the market price could be huge for frogs. This has been really confusing times but allowing those who want to rage quit to protect some of their investment seems fair.
I have to agree with @Soli here. Unfortunately the team didn’t, and still hasn’t, halt trading or even put out a public notice of the intent to do a snapshot for the purposes of backing.
The way things have played out the way they continue at this point… is that there is an underlying promise of backing from the team that STILL holds for ANYONE that holds wMEMO, no matter when they buy it.
Such is the nature of decentralized protocols and DeFi in general. If the team were to try and announce a backdated snapshot now, it’s too late. That would literally be last straw that tears this project apart for good.
Overall, clearly not worth the risk. Especially when the impact to treasury is a net loss of way less than 1% resulting purely from arb traders who would buy on market at lower and then redeem at backing. You really think it’s worth risk the whole project because you are worried about the treasury loosing than 1% in assets?
And by the way not only is it less than 1%… it’s almost 20 times less than 1% as outlined in the Medium linked as part of this proposal (which by the way is very similar to DCFs):
This is a separate issue. Since it ended up becoming a personal choice between Dani and Sifu on whether to pay these people back. This has nothing to do with treasury assets paying anyone back.
But as of the latest AMA, it seems Dani is still going to be paying certain people back out of his own pocket… So if I were you I’d contact hime directly.
This. People disagreeing are honestly not presenting any actual fact based information to support their statements. So instead of being constructive, it’s more like your personal opinion that doesn’t really help all the involved parties actually achieve anything. Ie they are using these forums to just rant personal emotions. Please keep discussions focused and on topic.
Or if you feel you are giving good information, please provide some facts supporting your arguments and furthermore, make helpful suggestions on how things can done differently while keeping all vested parties’ interests in mind, and allowing these interests to be served in a way that aligns with the team’s core promises.
I strongly support this proposal
- We want to move forward with committed supporters rather than arbs and whales
- It will support price appreciation for WMEMO which we would all benefit from
- It would increase backing per WMEMO (because BSGG is excluded)
- It would get the ball rolling on incremental steps to right the ship rather than backloading everything onto two complicated proposals that will take time to resolve
Lastly – Snowbank took this path and I think it was fair to everyone involved. Many of us bought in to this project at least partly based on the commitment to buy back at the backing price. If we as a community believe that WMEMO is backed by the treasury then it is only fair to allow people this option ASAP rather than dragging it out. I do not think that snapshots or haircuts make sense at all in this context. We should proceed rationally rather than emotionally. Everyone took risk to participate, discriminating against subgroups will not make the community richer.
I not agree, they are the CEO and the CFO of Wonderland, we base our trust on them. They word have to be fulfilled. I agree its not related to the Wonderland Treasury, but i think is tied related to the Wonderland success and any proposal to move forward, other wise Wonderland will drag all this issues. It is similar to BSGG Airdrop issue it is a promise and will be fulfilled.
Hell no. No tax on the rage quit option. That makes no sense.
On top of this @dcfgod & Wonderland team - all rebases need to be paused for the redemption period or RFV changes since wMEMO supply increases.
I appreciate your feedback. However dense you think I am or not. I look forward to voting when the time comes.
Strongly in favor of this proposal. Great work.
For a real case study, look at what happened to SnowBank:
They allowed rage quit option, redemption with MIM (as the guy proposed), price stayed at RFV for the duration of the event, is now 70% down from there, protocol shrank and they wasted 40% of treasury.
BTW to be precise is 40% of tokens (not really, mostly just those handful of whales who just bought who voted yes to wind down, to 2x their millions), not 40% of holders who want out. 85% of holders who partecipated in the snapshot voted to continue.
Why long term holders should pay a premium out of premium for those who want to sell? If they want to sell, no one is holding them in, let them sell at the fair market price. Long term price can’t be controlled.
They are aware of the risks of investing, their decisions, why others should bail them out?
Stopping LP removing liquidity and stopping trading means massive panic of “rug” from people who go to AMM to trade. That move comes with disadvantages.
DCF you yourself commented on twitter that Wonderland is pointless since one can deploy the same income strategies for themselves (no they can’t, especially frogs). Of course that statement was not accurate. THE POINT is that you’re notorious as a whale that does arbitrage trades, sweeping the floor under RFV.
You’re mostly here for the arbitrage.
Also smart to use the BSGG airdrop and how users would get more of it, nice buzzword to use to convince the cephalopods of “wen airdrop”
Fully agree with this - thank you for putting so much thought/research into this proposal which shows via real world examples that allowing for a rage quit option benefits both parties (Wonderland & those wishing to exit)! Am completely aligned with this idea and path forward. Strongly agree and also believe that such a proposal is best for both those who want to exit with something and also for the Wonderland community so that they can move on & also demonstrate that they’re true to their word (e.g. Dani’s statement on the 30th that such a rage quit option would be available which has temporarily kept holders from exiting until the option comes to fruition). I think pushing this forward would help show that Wonderland has everyone’s best interests in mind, and help restore confidence in the project overall/potentially create some renewed interest in the project for those that may not be currently invested, by showing that the project looked out for everyone that has gone through this together.
This is great, let’s keep this proposal at the top of the board - keep interacting with this. Let’s make this happen! This is a very well thought out proposal on how to help both Wonderland and also those who want to exit!
Hi. Thanks for the article. And taking the time to explain your stance. Currently reading. And as the maxim goes at said day, I’ll vote my conscience.
Agree with this proposal. Its a superior mechanism to buybacks that are value destructive when the purchase price is above “true liquid backing” but below notational backing.
I totally support this, let’s move forward