I totally agreed. Sifu post that the goal of buyback is to prevent cascade liquidations below backing price. The goal was not accomplish, and a lot of people set their liquidation price according to that post, because we trust in Sifu, Danielle, Wonderland project and the community. If something that was a “promise” fail, It’s reasonable to try to compensate the most loyal and faithfully Frogs. Otherwise the the trust of the Frog community to Danielle and Wonderland team will be terrible harmed.
1 Like
There was reassurance going in the discord repeatedly and constantly about this very subject, about the capabilities of the treasury to maintain price, and prevent cascade. Otherwise, people would have deleveraged or sold for a loss instead of getting Liquidated, obviously.
This whole discussion wouldn’t be happening otherwise.
This is not so “cut and dry dismissed” as people are trying to make it.
1 Like
You wouldn’t suffer. Quite the opposite actually. You would have more frogs, stronger and ready to move forward. Instead you have needlessly created many “adversaries” as a result of misleading information to frogs. and their money.
Your position wouldn’t change anyway…
100% payback if probably not a great idea. I do think we could look at 25% payback as a show of good faith and support to the frogs who got burned. And yes im one of those. I lost a cool 75k or so yesterday. I understand my risks and i took them. Got bitten for it. Sucks for me.
Do I think the system could have worked a little better? Yes. I was below backing and still got hit. Do I blame Sifu or Daniele? No. I want to lash out, but its my fault for being in that position. Long term nothing changes for me. Except I punched myself in the dick, so its going to sting for a while. Yall take a second and examine your choices before lashing out at others. No one made us click leverage but us.
Anywho, all that being said. Personally Id love to see 25% swing back my way to help me recover from that terrible dampage. 100% is probably irresponsible.
2 Likes
The backing price in my eyes is basically irrelevant, as none of what was sold, was accomplished. And this by no fault of the investors, but specifically by treasury managenent, creating the Liquidation event, not stopping it. Again, Any reasonable person would have just deleveraged, or sold at a loss, or payed back $MIMS, if not for the statements presented otherwise.
I would argue that, anything under $1145.7715 should be repayed. Not necessarily the “backing price” because that was presented as “safe” via treasury managenent, and the capabilities of the treasury. But there’s plenty of arguments here, to make yet another case for “price backing” or whatever else.
1 Like
Are you still going to do buybacks if it falls below backed value?
How low was the dip this person was referencing?
So, why 29%? Why not 32% why not 76%?
If you think the treasury mismanaged or misled in what their capabilities were, then why a %?
I’m not arguing that a specific leverage amount should/shouldn’t be paid.
I’m saying that ‘they’ sold their investors a bill of goods, including protection against specifically such events, and it was not accomplished, to the detriment of it’s earliest, and most loyal investors. (The ones who trusted Sifu/Treasury/Dani enough to take on the risk of leverage, in spite of early warning signs)
Agree with your posts. Anyone here saying they shouldn’t have leveraged is missing the point of bonding/minting and whatnot. It’s a tool that was, only after it broke, rescinded. Then they announce a new project on the heels of a collapse. They’re just stringing everyone along. If they can lie or mislead about this, they can and will continue to. Why not? Also, doxxed doesn’t mean much unless you’re a psycho.
2 Likes
They lost their most loyal investors (or at least their money) The ones who took risk in the face of impending and possible Liquidation, on the basis of trusting what treasury managenent claimed. Real, trust.
They have risk-averse people left, the ones who were not willing to stick their necks out for the project. And if not, at the very least, their trust was befuddled by something so easily repaired.
1 Like
Guys, I’m a MASSIVE Wonderland supporter and have been from the start! I’ve been buying at the top, middle and bottom of the price action because I believe in the team. However, yesterday I got liquidated and lost everything pretty much. My Liq price was set at 1050 as I was under the impression that the treasury would buy back the wMEMO tokens WAY before it got to my liquidation price, I can see now I was wrong. However as soon as it went below the backing value and didn’t rise again I tried to deleverage myself but the functionality of that system was non existent, it kept saying to put my slippage up, even 25% was not high enough, the button simply wasn’t working.
Playing with leverage is a big boys game and we must all face the consequences of our actions, which I have come to terms with. However, due to most people setting their strategy’s based on a situation they thought o be true that turned out not to be, there is a slight air of injustice.
I’m sure that if the team refunded all people that were liquidated from the treasury it would only strengthen the community to a point no other community has experienced before! Those people would also obviously not leverage to that extent again.
Refunding those liquidated would be a radical defining moment in all of crypto let alone DEFI and would be possibly the best marketing for the Wonderland ecosystem EVER!
I love the frog nation but due to me losing everything I now have nothing left to participate with, I’m upset about that. I’d love nothing more than to continue to be apart of the ecosystem!
P.S - Refunding all those liquidated would be a MASSIVE FUCK YOU to the whales that caused the crash!! Lets stick it to them frogs! 
Wish you all a peaceful and enjoyable day.
Rev
3 Likes
‘Fuck the whales’ doesn’t do shit if there’s under one million people throwing $300 in. You will get whales and you will get dumps no matter what. There will never be a capital project that is immune to big investments. That’s a good thing.
Refunding would probably be better as a locked token over a duration maybe partial unlocks too. In the end, the damage is done. If you take a look at Sifu’s tweet shitting on gOHM in the same breath he gets liquidated is kinda poetry. That’s the treasurer that got voted up. Doesn’t get the same attention, and critique, as Dani while effectively being in more control.
Ever thought about writing books or doing content ? I’m sure you’d be good at it. Honestly.
Yep. The leverage cascade was based on specific direction about the treasury’s capabilities to prevent such cascades.
…And sold as such.
The most affected my this cascade, are the people who trusted in the project the most, by trusting the management and developers in a way to stick their necks out for such events without fear (because of what was presented as “nothing to worry about, safe, etc.”) And then were left to slaughter in the end.
In no way would I (or many others) have been leveraged in the position without the repeated and constant talk about how powerful “the treasury” was in preventing such a cascade. … And then nothing.
Most reasonable people would have just deleveraged, or sold for a loss, as opposed to getting Liquidated, if not for the repeated claims of “the treasury’s” protection against such instances. That’s also, why there was so much money in treasury in the first place.
Good luck in your fight ser. Great post.
Wow, very nice of you to say!
…Hmm?? nope, Not at all really…
Thanks for the kind words ser!
1 Like
Wrong.
It was never stated that the buybacks would protect leveraged positions from being liquidated with an automated buy.
It WAS stated that the buybacks would protect the intrinsic asset value, that DOESN’T mean that the price wont drop below the backing at any time, thus liquidating positions.
PS: I’m sorry to hear that leveraged positions were liquidated with this, but that is the risk we all take.
1 Like
I agree with your sentiment. However, there were functions put in place that suggested they would protect against a large dump effectively rendering the whales useless. Those functions didn’t work.
I’d be more than happy with a refund in the form of Vested tokens or a lockup period, more than happy.
I appreciate your reply Ser/Maam, nice to interact 
Why the lock up of token? If there was a wrong to right, then there should be no stipulations on that.
Anyway. The damage is not done necessarily, and can be repaired quite easily with the correct mindset and understanding of the events that created this discussion in the first place.
There were frogs who stuck their necks out for the treasury, and they were left to slaughter. Those frogs were the most loyal and trusting of the words of the treasury managenent, and were killed because of that trust. I would understand if that was the goal in the first place (to lure people in just to slaughter for their gains) , but it’s presented as otherwise currently.
I agree with your points with a little more to add. I was ‘all in’ in terms of my belief in the team, depending on the decision made from this proposal I could be even more so!
I held out as long as I possibly could, when I saw 7% position health I decided I had to act and deleverage myself. I did what I was told to do, but the deleverage function absolutely did not work ( the reasons of over demand etc are irrelevant - when I needed the function it was not there for me!) Watching my position slowly diminish over the next few minutes to minus % was heart breaking. I wish it would have worked, I really do.
1 Like
If there was a wrong to be righted, then there shouldn’t be a penalty (lockup) for those wronged.
It’s not reasonable to tell a group of investors that we will not let something take place (cascade events) and then for it happen, and then possibly pay them back on an expectation of a “lockup period.”
That’s just downright evil.