To be fair, the argument for repayment specifically applies to positions which were liquidated below backing, not necessarily ANY position. (There has also been some confusion/miscommunication about exactly what the backing price means, so that certainly is a contributing factor.) But I understand your point.
1 Like
Okay, then hear me out:
Through a certain lense, this could easily be viewed as a fraud of sort, given the treasury was built by us (the investors) and promised (sold to investors) to be used in a certain way when needed (to protect itâs investors against these type problems), and then, specifically reiterated these claims multiple times only hours before said cascade.
And, now, the treasury sits currently, basically unharmed, while people yell about whether or not people should have leveraged (which is not the argument anyway)
Iâm all about personal responsibility. Iâve held a job since I was twelve, I own a business. So, I get that part fully, and will take the L when it comes along.
But, in this case I was specifically lied to from the founder in which I bought the coin from, directly.
2 Likes
If youâre in a room with three people, including yourself. Two of them vote to take your money. That is a âwell functioning democracy.â
Youâre a blind fool to think thereâs such thing as a âwell functioning democracy.â
Look around the planet. Plenty of âdemocraciesâ none of them "well functioning, " because it doesnât work⌠obviously.
1 Like
So, basically itâs a good idea, and/or the right thing in this case, if it doesnât affect you monetarily ?
I definitely hear you. The communication on this one was a complete bust, and your point about the treasury is well taken. I understand itâs not about the outcome, about whether or not or how someone should leverage, but about knowing we can rely on the system weâve bought into, some people to the tune of 6 or 7 digits (Iâm not one of them. lol).
Honestly, Iâm curious to hear Dani and Sifuâs take on this. The bailout with $spell in August helped sell me on this project, as it shows theyâre in it to create healthy ecosystems. I know that was a different situation (hacked instead of a cascade), but it was an outlier, and it makes me wonder how theyâll handle other outliers that may be in need of correction.
1 Like
No, not at all. I have soul. This is crypto though. Would we be having this discussion if you didnât borrow so much?
1 Like
The people will vote.
1 Like
This isnât about leverage. This is specifically about being lied to, about what the treasury would be used for, in the case of a cascade event or otherwise. The founder specifically and repeatedly said that this circumstance would be protected, and it wasnât. So, now, the treasury (basically unharmed) did not protect the people who endowed it.
if you borrowed against the spot, you will be liquidated against the spot price, not the backing price.
1 Like
It wasnât an outlier as Sifu was speaking about this event approximately 6 hours beforehand, specifically
2 Likes
No, we just need to make informed decisions.
If this proposal used 40% of the treasury (i know it wont, but just saying), and buybacks used 20% of the treasury, thats a lot of value gone.
We just need to know the numbers in my opinion.
1 Like
Itâs not about how much anyone borrowed (specifically me, I borrowed at ~90% Health Rate, 85 days ago).
Itâs about being lied to, about what the treasury would be used for in this case, specifically. Even reiterated claims of âdonât worry, this canât/wonât happenâ (paraphrasing) merely hours prior to happening.
The reason the vote doesnât make any sense (in this circumstance) is because the people who got Liquidated arenât able to vote! They were Liquidated!
1 Like
You can buy more/deleverage according to the market price.
Okay, i just think its erroneous. If itâs wrong, itâs wrong, regardless of affect.
I get it that that is your argument, but clearly the topic raised comprises more than 1 argument. if it was that simple, there would be no poll to vote. I sincerely hope you will be able to come back out of your situation.
My argument is that liquidations take place because of leverage. Anyone that leverages should understand the risk that comes with it. I do not agree that other frogs money is being used to bail out leveraged positions. So I changed my vote to against now instead of agreeing with modifications.
2 Likes
I voted against. And i did that because by principle i never leverage.
Now i donât have anything against people who do and itâs also fine if they choose to repay people who did.
But i donât think greed should be encouraged. Because of it we had this cascading effect that threatens the trust and stability of the project. And yes, i still have faith in it.
1 Like
Iâm sorry, I might have misused outlierâŚI just meant that it was a situation that is unique or, at best, atypical for the $Time/Wonderland ecosystem. But yes, I saw those from Sifu, and itâs hard not to take the word of someone who had built such high trust with the community.
Hopefully the next hours to days will see some resolution one way or the other and this situation brings to light some of the adjustments needed in the projectâs communication, especially for those new to DAOs/$Time.
1 Like
Well, you can look at leverage as a tool, instead of âgreedâ because thatâs what it is.
Thatâs like a person saying; I only use a handsaw, because people who use a table saw are greedy with their time.
Itâs just a tool for those with higher risk tolerance. It has no bias.
That being said, the leverage tool built this project. Itâs why it has a huge treasury, specifically. Because you can borrow against it. Thatâs why people get into it in the first place. Otherwise, just go stake any old crypto.
The entire project was built on the premise that you can borrow against the token. Leverage. That is/was the very main selling point.
Itâ would not be âother frogs moneyâ its specifically the frogs who funded the project.
The treasury is currently, unscathed, and it should have been scathed, being thatâs partially what itâs for, ⌠to back up pricing during cascades, as stated by the treasury manager, specifically.
Your vote against is being ill-used, and should be reconsidered
1 Like
Ok, fine. Itâs a tool for greedy people. Better?
I mean, by the example you gave, will using a table saw have the higher chance of cutting my arm off? If yes, then no thanks, i prefer having my arm attached to my body, so iâll keep using the handsaw. Because thats the difference between good olâ staking and leveraging, you might lose an arm while getting ahead in time.