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.
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.
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!
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.
@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.
What do you think about wMEMO collected from those who exit being distributed back to those who stay? Makes the whole quit option a win for everyone. Everyone gets something out of it.
I am strongly in favor of this proposal and trust DCF God to be apart of the team that calculates RFV. Removing those that want to leave wonderland now will allow the protocol to move forward with the true diamond hands.
I dont agree with this. If the potential rage quitters vote irresponsibly they are torpedoing the project and sabotaging their own position. All they have to do is wait until the market as a whole recovers and we will naturally return to backing price. Why give them a competitive advantage by giving them early retort to the backing price so that they can take that money and buy up other assets on the cheap? It puts our own recovery back ( the long term holders) by compromising our treasury. This is either the free market or it isnt, if they need to leave they can sell. It was clearly stated in the docs that going below backing price was a possibility, but should not be an option for those that can stay the course as the price will recover. it also should not be used as a bail out for those that want their cake and to eat it too. Fudging with the crypto markets is a dangerous game as the buy backs proved.
As someone mentioned before look at Snowbank`s Rage Quit and how that ended up for the treasury.
N.B Burning tokens is not a good idea as we will end up paying a premium for them just to destroy them. Better to hold onto them as when the market recovers they can be sold and their increased value added to the treasury.
Fantastic proposal from a respected member of the community.
It allows people to move forward.
It allows Dani to please both sides of the community.
If you want to stay. Do as you please.
I will vote Yes on the proposal.
Market Recovers? How long do you think that will take? What if we are in a bear market? The opportunity cost of holding on to something until the “Market Recovers” is large.
This proposal allows me to get out at the fair price and it allows you to wait until the market recovers to recovery your funds. lol.
