Definitely a good idea. I hope this will go through the steps to become a snapshot.
But before that I think that the voting system in the DAO needs to be slightly changed in order to be more fair, by giving a bit more weight to long-term holders.
Without a fair voting system EVERY VOTE CAN BE EASILY MAIPULATED.
This is the proposal that aims to solve that:
https://dao.wonderland.money/t/new-proposal-introducing-the-frog-index-for-fair-voting-power-redistribution-in-the-dao/12901
We need to stop this useless crusade. We need those arbs out, keeping them will hinder future PA on the project, they wonât leave at a loss.
I agree if this include these guys that was liquidated that two black days on cascade, that also a promise that isnât fullfed yet
This is great! Could you please add a poll at the end of the proposal? Itâs fairly easy to do and you can add 2 choices, 1. Agree and 2. Disagree. Example below:
0 voters
Thank you!
Please yes. I have been here since November. I am down massively but I just want out at fair value. They promised to maintain backing, they didnât. So let me out at backing and I will happily go on my way. I donât want what I put in back just what I am owed based on promises made.
Except give me my BSGG airdrop. That has been promised so many times and we are owed that also
I agree with this. Please push this through
I support this with one amendment. The snapshot used to see which wallets can claim should be the one taken for the original Sifu out vote. Many wallets, including those that have been trying to manipulate votes, bought thousands upon thousands of TIME after this snapshot, in an attempt to game the wMEMO price against the backing price. People would of course claim against their current wMEMO amount. The snapshot is only used to determine what wallets can claim.
I agree with this. People who want to stay can stay and people who want to leave can leave. If the concern is too many people will want to leave then that mean the project has failed. And if you are concerned why not just start bonding again if you feel the treasury is no longer large enough? There is a reason we are not trading close to backing.
agree with this proposal 100%
If not mistaken, Dani did say the snapshot for bsgg was already taken but due to multiple networks so the data having some issues.
The core team probably can suggest what is the simplest way to implement this. Just my $0.02, maybe we can freeze the buy/selling for a short period. Then retake a new snapshot after the rage quit holders exit.
Of course liquidated holders, if they donât have anymore tokens might not get this. Or we have a way to include them still.
I believe a rage-quit option is the fastest way to remove those who are not commited the community long-term and allow those of us who are to make the best decisions going forward.
I think we should allow for a longer redemption period. I think 30 days would be reasonable, or maybe an exit mechanism should be kept open in the long-term. This could actually become a way to maintain token price at backing value.
I donât think there should be a penalty. This will just overly complicate the proposal. Also, removing BSGG could already be considered enough of a penalty.
This proposal is much simpler and direct than the other more comprehensive proposals that have been submitted. They still require lots of time and discussion to refine. The decision on rage-quit alone should be able to move a lot quicker to a snapshot vote and allow us to speed up the recovery process.
The snapshot proposal should include the exact details of how the tokens will be redeemed (I really like the option of offering a simple wMEMO/MIM conversion), including the exact redemption value.
How do we speed up this proposal to a snapshot vote? Would be happy to help us in getting to that point.
EDIT:
Originally I had supported the idea of limiting the amount allowed based on some kind of a blockchain snapshot, but have changed my opinion after reading this medium article and also better understanding the technical challenges of creating that kind of snapshot for all possible token holders.
Whats so hard with them selling their coins on the open market? Why is a rage quit vote needed? They can simply get out like others did by hitting that little excahnge button in sushi swap or trader joe or whatever. It would be the same as giving them money at the backing priceâŚwhich was the same proposal as the âwinding downâ vote was. So pleaseâŚYou want you money the right wayâŚsee the project trhough and get money via rev shares. Want out there is trader joe and sushi optionsâŚthey open 24/7
Add another checkbox agree with a snapshot date in mind. We can decide on said date later.
I disagree with this, I was not in favor of winding down but I am in favor of letting people out.
Hereâs why I think RageQuit is better than telling people to sell on the open market:
Currently, the wMEMO token is trading below NAV due to FUD and a loss of trust because of Sifuâs revealed identity and Danieleâs decision to not treat that in a transparent manner. Because of that, the market value of the token does not represent its intrinsic value. Itâs just not a good financial decision to sell your tokens right now. Which means that until the market value represents the tokenâs intrinsic value, our community will have lots of people who want to leave and do not have the protocolâs best long-term interest in mind. Our best option is to encourage them to leave so that we may move forward stronger. Allowing them to exit at the intrinsic value, while removing arbitrage opportunities is probably the fairest option, considering the damage that has been done to their trust.
Also, based on the new proposals that are being submitted, Wonderland is going to undergo a major restructuring. It makes sense to encourage investors who arenât on board with these changes to leave and guarantee that only those with the protocolâs best long-term interests in mind get a say in future proposals. This has recently been done the Rari Capital / Fei Protocol merger, and I believe this was overall beneficial to their project.
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.
https://dao.wonderland.money/t/rage-quit-option-preproposal-discussion/13090
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 holdersâ wMEMO total balance proportionately to however much the treasury decreases from those exiting. Basically rewarding those who choose to stay in the project.
Why donât 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.
Thoughts?
You canât 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.