The treasury will drop only at backing price, which is beneficial to WL, it’s cheaper than it’s value. the Treasury will continue to grow, and you will get your rev share as a higher percentage of wmemo holder, since they will burn the wmemo that is sold at backing.
gobbledygook. You’re gonna have to square the circle and explain how it’s beneficial for Wonderland to operate with 50% of its investment capital.
1 Like
We all bought in at whatever the value was and for whatever our reasons were at the time we bought in. It’s an investment. I understand the need for positive energy and as long as there are people left in the project that feel they’ve been taken advantage of in someway it hurts our ability to have positive energy. That said I’m not comfortable with someone else being unjustly enriched while abandoning the project with more of my funds. I’ve already lost enough. To give them more money means my value is being even more negatively impacted than it already is. I suppose I would be willing to cover half of the costs associated with paying somebody back more than the value of their actual investment currently provided Dani paid the other half. After all I didn’t do anything to tank the value of this project, I would say if anyone were to blame it would be Dani. Don’t misunderstand this as being anti-Danni. If I were anti-Dani I would be long gone already. The new ones to my thoughts is that half of the inflated value can be paid from the treasury, the other half would be paid by Dani if he agrees to do that. If not then the difference between actual value and back value should be split 50-50. The quitters can decide if it’s worth it.
2 Likes
i said profit. only those who bought under backing will make more money than they put in. the others will make less. that’s a fact.
2 Likes
Thanks for the feedback. I too would like more feedback on the likelihood of this playing this way from others.
If I may ask you to share this discussion (twitter, discord, all of the above) and invite people you think could be helpful to look at this that would be appreciated.
1 Like
Because the treasury wouldn’t be $750 million if there wasn’t a promise of backing. I don’t think I’m the only one who stayed in the project because of the backing price. Again, this wasn’t something we imagined, it was on the dashboard and Dani said multiple times that it would be honored. If I had any idea that we would be arguing over this, I would have pulled my investment the second we went under 8K.
The treasury was amassed under false pretense if backing isn’t honored. That is one way to go, but no matter if there is a WL 2.0 or it is folded under Abra, that stigma will go with it. What reputable project would take an investment from WL if they knew of the integrity issues surrounding the treasury? Would Alameda do a funding round with WL if this is the case? We’ve already witnessed the answer to that question. The scope needs to be broadened from “how much is my share of the revenue payout” to understand that this thing doesn’t become a SPAC or VC fund if the crypto world thinks that the project founders lack integrity.
Payout out the people who want off the ride will give everyone a clean slate and the ones who want to stay onboard certainly can.
1 Like
I agree. The only reason Id support the rage quit option is under the circumstances I listed on another comment in this section. Whats important to me is that whatever the solutions are we choose we have to maintain the treasury as it is now or if anything minimal to negligible impact. Goal should be to grow it. Healthy growth means higher payouts for us at the end as wmemo price is irrelevant only proportional share. With treasury growth and increasing payouts, wMemo price will increase sooner or later due to having a succesful revenue generating protocol, which will attract investors either way.
Please try be more helpful with your feedback. This is not a forum for you to rant your feelings. Keep it on subject with the ultimate goal of trying to get things done. Not to sit back and call people out.
1 Like
Yes I can do that sure! 
1 Like
Thanks for the help. Appreciate it and fully agree.
Hello. Your request is reasonable but I am of the belief that this “rage quit” option would not be beneficial for the project. If wMEMO stays below backing many people can exploit the treasury by simply buying and rage quitting at backing value. It is a no brainer to buy 200 dollars at 60 cents a pop.
1 Like
There wasnt a promise of buybacks. People, including me, assumed that buybacks automatically happen below backing price. Backing price just says something about a fair value of the token respectively what it is backed by. It basically says something about if its under or overvalued, whether its fairly priced or not. Buybacks could happend but didnt have to happen. Most misinterpreted the meaning of backing price and the false hopes of buybacks. The buybacks eventually happened but according to WL docs it wasnt a MUST. It could have been communicated clearer I agree but again it was my misinterpretation and false expections. As shitty as it sounds but factually speaking at least this part of the whole drama, was the fault of some if not most investors where they have to blame themselves.
Ragequit option should only be available for longterm holders and enabled for people that were included in a specific snapshot for example the one for the BSGG airdrop. Ragequit option also should also just be available for a certain time period and not indefinitely because then if backing price would have 2x the impact on the treasury could be substantial. Therefore a fair way out for longterm holders is reasonable but only under certain conditions like the ones stated above.
I agree with this proposal. I don’t believe in the long term profitability of this project, but respect those who still do.
If you are still backing this project, and you believe in it’s success, it will be cheaper to buy us out at current backing price than at a future (and potentially significantly higher) one.
1 Like
I hate to disagree with you, but the backing wasn’t a misunderstanding. Search the Discord and you’ll see that Dani himself wrote: “We saved the backing with selling” on 12/10/21. Sifu gets a ton of hate, but when he was the revered master of the treasury he spoke on this subject several times and executed buybacks in support of it. The backing was something that had meaning and many people kept funds in the project because of this.
1 Like
Yes and No. I get your point and I partially agree. Let me give you the context of what I mean. The way wonderland started off was exactly with the meaning of backing price as I explained and as it was stated in the docs. According to the docs there was never an obligation to do buybacks. Backing in finance normally doesnt automatically entail buybacks. The point where things changed was when Dani started to PROMISE that they will do buybacks and GIVE IN to the pressure of these false expectations…because then it turned from a false interpretation/ misunderstanding of the documentation to a justified assumption/ expectation deviating from the docs because it was then further specified by Dani and Sifu. And at that point you are right they were kind of pressured, through their own promises they gave to obey,which they didnt have to in the first place IMO. So yes theyve created that mess themselves and executed these buybacks poorly. So criticism certainly is justified. I didnt like the buybacks as they led to the draining of the treasury because it didnt seem to prevent whale manipulation/ liquidation cascades effectively.
If there weren’t arbitragers prices was below 5k$. You shouldn’t buy it when it was too high above backing price. Nothing can bring your loss back unfortunately. It sucks but Daos failing one by one because of the bubble phase at the beginning causes negativity. After redistribution it can prove it is honoring backing price so people can buy it above backing price thinking they have backing gurantee.
Hey Ross and Kev,
You guys bring up good points and I’m interested to hear what @LetsDeFi responds.
Ross have had a chance to evaluate analysis in the medium article? The situation here is not as cut and dry as what is presented as face value and there are many factors being considered when presenting the thoughts in the Medium article and then the proposal as well. Ofcourse it is a no brainer, and for that reason, it is reasonable to assume the shortly after the team commits to a temporarily available exit at backing option, the price of wMEMO would in fact not stay below backing. As described in the Medium article it is reasonable to assume that it will actually get bought up very close to backing. The. the question that must be asked is: will the people who are able to buy below backing and then redeem at backing significantly impact the treasury?
And again, as per the Medium article, it shows how the treasury would end up with a net loss of ~0.06%. Otherwise stated, it would end up with a net loss of almost 20 times less than 1%. I think we can all agree that bearing such a minuscule loss would not only be possible, but unnoticeable. This loss calculation is specifically analyzing the net loss the treasury would bear due to arb traders who buy the day of the announcement and then redeem at backing as soon as possible. It also details how this process won’t be possible to be continually replicated.
Further to all this, the treasury would also decrease in size from wMEMO holders who wish to exit. According to the last vote this represented about 45% of people. In exiting, the proposal further mentions that the wMEMO tokens from those who exit should be distributed back to those who remain. Keeping the proportion of all remaining owners’ holdings in tact. And ultimately, it gives the team a way to do good on a fundamental promise that they have continually committed to the community and even used to promote investor confidence - that is, don’t worry about price, your holdings are guaranteed to have some minimum value by the backing value.
As you can see, this is not an easy face value problem to which a simple solution exists. After being in the discord for a while, being in DeFi for years now, and going through almost every presented option for how we can move forward with the least resistance and allowing all parties to benefit in some way, shape or form… this proposal so far stands out as the most simple to execute and potentially the one that works best.
For a deeper understanding on the how the number of way less than 1% treasury loss due to arb traders is derived please refer to the Medium article.
I’d like to see what additional comments you might have after reading it through for sure. And overall curious to see @LetsDeFi response here.
To kev, I hear and am tempted to agree. But I can see why this proposal has been made this way. After if the team had made public announcements to people not to trade their token because a snapshot impacting the outcome of holdings was going to be taken then maybe I’d be more on board with your line of thought. But at no point was there an announcement of potential snapshots, and at no point did the team remove liqiuidity or pause the contract - so now we are all kind of in tough spot. You can;t leave a token trading on the market and then make proposals deciding the outcome of people’s holdings after the fact. This would be disingenuous and quite frankly open up a whole new can of “this project is no longer decentralized” and “team are liars” worms. I don’t think it would overall be a healthy choice to back date snapshots for that reason. What say you?
Is this proposal doesn’t happen, this whole project is confirmed scam!!
This will let folks that want to move on move on and folks invested in the future to hold those folks wMemo. I think this is the best case. Like DCF God says we need a way to work off the bagholders without getting rekt in the process. This is an elegant solution a must vote for. Great proposal.