This is exactly what I’ve been waiting for
1 Like
You cannot prevent people who bought lower to make money when price goes up….
You can just do the same…
If you don’t allow them to exit now, they’ll dump on you when project recovers, slowing down the recovery.
It’s not the fault of people who bought low if you bought high.
1 Like
No, this can be gamed
I won’t support any rage quit option. It will deplete our treasury far more than people realize.
And why are we even considering a proposal by someone who is not doxxed?
Anyone making a proposal should be doxxed. Let’s make that a vote first.
1 Like
I’m in 100% agreement with this proposal. The professor is obviously well versed in crypto and problem solving. This is the only way to move forward and continue to build the protocol. We’ll done professor. You need to be on the multisig!
2 Likes
Agree, we need to move forward
1 Like
Despite what people say about the APY and rebases being a marketing ploy to build the treasury. I think if you want to do the rage quit, we need to keep it for atleast a year. That way if rage quite happens it helps to build the treasury back up. Aim for atleast 2 billion or something first. Even when olympus started decreasing it… they did not decrease it so quickly.
Rage quit option may bring some benefits for Wonderland token holders. Here I my thoughts:
Rage quit virtually burns token supply and reduces sell pressure instead of selling $TIME and $wMEMO directly in the market. It gives Wonderland holders other tokens from the treasury instead of $TIME and redirects sell pressure to those markets.
My ideas on the conditions if we enable a rage quit option:
- Rage quit should be enabled only when the price is below the backing price.
- Rage quit needs to be penalized and limited to 70-80% of the backing price.
- Rage quit should be available only to the long/mid term holders/stakers.
Those 3 conditions will highly reduce the risk of the whale manipulation, futures short selling or arb trading.
Also those conditions will help Wonderland to gain trust as the backing price will be solid and redeemable.
3 Likes
how does rage quit helps to rebuild the treasury? You are missing something 
1 Like
I support this. curios to see what other think. thank you guys for sharing knoweledge.
1 Like
I am not saying rage quit rebuilds the treasury… I am saying if they go ahead with it, they need to rebuild it, i.e. continue with the APY and rebases for a year to get more people in. (The initial marketing ploy).
Rebasing is the ponzi mechanic, it may work only during the bullmarket. A bullmarket is the most risk seeking environment. We are in a chop faze of the market. People a taking away their investments. It is PvP. No more capital inflows.
Rebasing and high APY cannot be sustained in a long time. We have a living example of OHM. It started half a year earlier. It is struggling to sustain itself now.
This should be the first project where the whales that are attempting to game the system get disappointed instead of the little guy (frogs). I’m not saying they should lose all their money, but they made the decision to come in at the darkest hour and like vultures pick the little man apart. I should make a distinction here between whales that have been in this for a while and vultures which have come in recently, I acknowledge that all wales aren’t the same in this particular case. This proposal talks about two sides winning, we should be focused on how we can all accept the short term losses equally/equitably to setup the community, the DAO, for long term wins. This is a DAO and the DAO has to look out for itself (its treasury), not appease those that came in attempting to take advantage. This RAGE quit proposal has some good things in it (probably for distraction), but its main purpose and focus (displayed in its title) undoubtedly is in favor of the vultures … I speak of those that have bought wmemo at its lowest prices, in its darkest hours, aka.RECENTLY in hopes of the buyback for profit (which would drain the treasury and leave the frogs of frog nation high and dry).
BibGJones please get that info together, I agree it will enlighten people to what’s attempting to be done here!
2 Likes
Yes, we all understand there’s risk in terms of investment. Market volatility is understandable.
However, this is not the case. Then why the long-term holders are intitled to their initial investment?
-
The founder and development team admitted that this OHM Fork Wobderland project was an experiment failure because the original purpose of the project was mainly for fund raising. The high APY was designed as a gamification to attract investors to build the treasury not sustainable long-term.
-
The treasury was derived from the long-term holder’s contributions (initial investment) .
-
They are intitled to receive their initial contributions because Wonderland project no longer can fulfill its original promise but simply a gamification for falsely infeasible long-term hope.
Therefore, the early adopters are intitled to claim their initial investment and no reason to absorb the loss due to project errors.
**Initial investment means the date you purchased. If the whales or anyone who were not early adopters will receive what they are intitled to based on purchased date accordingly, no more no less.
2 Likes
I disgree with the rage quit proposal. Fundamentally letting a group of anonymous people take a fraction of the treasury is unfair and opportunistic. The biggest problem with rage quit is there is no guarantee that this will not happen in the future again. What some group people want to rage quit again in the future then what? Allow some group of people that maybe attacking the system to raid the treasury again? I would even compare this to a bank robbery holding us up threatening us, and we are voting to allow this to happen… absurd in my opinion. The only time the treasury should be dismantled is if the DAO dissolves. People who want to rage quit can just sell their shares of Time, memo or wmemo. Just because you own a stock and you get mad at the management doesn’t mean you can take a portion of the company’s assets. You just sell your stock.
Alternatively, there are other options :
- Since the problem originates from the treasury not initiating a buyback when price fell below the backing price, initiate this immediately.
- Then to compensate for the late action, burn all wonderland tokens transacted from the point of inflection to the point of buyback.
2 Likes
Ser, you are so worried about not letting these new entrants make money, and you even ignore the facts that letting them rage quit benefits hodlers. All you care about is not letting others make money because they are smart and bought in at a good price. You don’t really care about long term hodlers. You need to grow up.
2 Likes
I’ll be in favor of this proposal if we disallow rage quitting for those who purchased tokens after Sifugate. Otherwise, we give open the door to whales and sharks buying treasury share at a discount.
4 Likes
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!
2 Likes
Frogs, Countrymen, lend me your ears: Do not be consumed with paranoia and the rhetoric that “whales” are coming for your treasury. This simply isn’t the case.
A treasury redemption option largely benefits the tens of thousand of small holders that are likely underwater and wish to exit (or not!) in that it offers them freedom and a choice.
The only fair path forward for both Wonderland and current wMEMO holders is to allow for a redemption option. Market participants will buy up to the “backing price,” increasing the value of the treasury and the value of remaining wMEMO holders. Users who sell their wMEMO back to the treasury
The treasury will remain intact from a fiscal perspective and the increased wMEMO holdings can be used in business development/VC opportunities. All defi mergers to date have been token swaps and stock deals are commonplace in traditional finance.
Additionally, market buybacks below backing value is a fool’s errand. There will always be market participants that will be able to drive the price below backing in order to extract value from any buyback.
TLDR: Allow a treasury redemption option and stop buybacks.
1 Like
I like this proposal this is by far the most sensible proposal balancing the interest of both side holders. Let’s get more folks out to push this forward.
1 Like