I agree but that won’t get as much backing realistically. (Mob rule)
I fully agree. The point of sticking our necks out in trust that Sifu & Team would do everything to stop this kind of event (with the power of the large treasury) from happening, at then to just play it off as "well, you knew it could happen " or “we never said…” is just downright gross negligence at the very least.
Especially, when it wouldn’t barely scratch the treasury to right this wrong.
1 Like
Well if thats the case regarding the treasury I have to agree. Only reason I would be happy to receive vested tokens etc is if it would help the growth of Wonderland and the whole ecosystem as I’d love it all to thrive and to put this behind us! I agree, I think the team have made a mistake. But lets see if they do anything to help.
Well, okay, but you’re assuming that.
With the correct arguments in place, there’s no real reason that would be the case.
I understand crowds don’t understand nuance, but all and all it’s a pretty basic argument for the repayment, in it’s entirety and immediately.
A devastating mistake to many of us. Especially in the face of being told, “nothing to worry about” just hours prior to the event by the team responsible for mitigating this very thing.
I’m not assuming anything, thats the modus operandi. You’re delusional if you don’t think there will be psychological resistance for your idea even before starting.
It’s that situation where I couldn’t deleverage that really hurt me. I was happy to lose my leveraged position at the bottom to save my bag (thats the play that was sold to me - 'Just deleverage"). However reality was something totally different! Not allowed to deleverage
I didn’t say that. I’m saying with a simple direct argument, people can understand the nuance… when presented properly.
sifu is not a ‘genius’ and got taken advantage of at the very least (hes a degen leverager). the treasury had to make up for that lack of insight. isn’t that a problem to you?
UPDATE
Thank you all for taking the time to share your thoughts and also informally vote for sentiment analysis.
An updated proposal (including a summary of comments in favor and against) has been sent and currently being reviewed by the Wonderland Team for publication on the RFC area. This would be the second step in the governance process before, if so decided by the community, a formal vote on the matter.
I’d encourage you to reflect your position by voting and use the comment sections to add ideas for possible resolution (if you have a different proposal) and not to defend positions. I think it’s clear now all the arguments for/against the proposal, no need to keep “arguing” imo.
Again, this investment was based on the fact that the treasury manager of the project presented the capabilities of the treasury to do something that it didn’t. Specifically.
It’s constructive in the fact that it exists. You have slaughtered the frogs that were willing to stick their necks out for the project, trusted Dani and Sifu to do what they said they would do, and then have the nerve to say you don’t find it constructive.
You clearly didn’t think through the arguments. And that’s okay, but, declaring it’s all for nothing, not constructive, and thread to be closed, is reprehensible for many reasons.
1 Like
How much money did u lose, I see u hurt man
This probably will get lost in the text. But I managed to get liquidated on the way back up. After the price hit 40k (which was the bottom, at 21.10 UTC+1), I leveraged 4 times. But the way the oracle in abracadabra works is that it uses TWAP. So even though I leveraged way above 40k, I managed to get liquidated because of the delay. I was leveraging when the price was 48k and BOOM I get liquidated at a liquidation price of 45k. This is not stated anywhere in the Abrabcadabra document. I got punished for timing the bottom. I have proof of this of some of you still do not believe me. This should not happen. My last leverage happened at 21.23UTC+1. On 21.24 I get liquidated. I checked the code, it follows the price of the wMemo/MIM pair on sushiswap. Those that do not believe me can go in and check what the price was at the time of my liquidation. Nowhere near the 45k they say the price was.
1 Like
Those who were Liquidated lost their power in “the vote”
Even if it were $2, the principle, argument and sentiment remains.
good point. what democracy punishes those that believe in it?
1 Like
Indeed, that is also reflected in the RFC proposal.
Not really sure how this could be changed tho. If you have ideas I’m happy to incorporate them in the document.
Well, I wasn’t going to say anything beyond my initial comments but since it seems that at least some folks see this thread as their platform to say the same things, over and over again, trying to convince people that their view is the “Right” view, I figured one more comment from me won’t hurt.
I do understand that folks are hurting from the loss of their assets. I can relate having lost 10’s of thousands of dollars over the years to bad, or just failed projects (also had some successes, but I’ve had my fair share of loss too). So I don’t want to “beat up” on those who were liquidated.
Having said that, there’s a couple of things about this “argument” that bother me.
First, it keeps getting thrown around that Sifu “Lied”. A lie, requires by definition an intent to deceive. I have yet to see any proof of this intent. I personally believe that the intent was to buy back above backing price to prevent this type of event from happening. However, Sifu also said that the price could dip below backing and never (at least that I’m aware of) said how far below or for how long. So if one comment carries all the weight of the “lie”, then why doesn’t the other comment, with the warning, carry the same weight? Possibly because when one is trying to convince people of a point, they only focus on the details that support their position (naturally).
Secondly, I would say that they successfully did buy back after the dip (as Sifu had stated they would do many times in the past), to bring it back to backing price. BUT, it’s obvious that people thought it should happen faster than it did. So that’s something for Sifu/Wonderland can work on. I think all frogs (including Sifu and Dani) wish this event wouldn’t have happened or at least would have been mitigated faster than it was.
And lastly, the theory/idea that folks were “protected” from cascading events like this by the Treasury. I’m sorry, but just like malware protection you put on your laptop/PC protects you, it’s not infallible nor will it catch/stop everything. Neither will any “protection” that I’ve seen when dealing with financial or asset risk. What I believe one should do is know going in that there’s always risk, and then determine how much risk one is willing to accept if the “wheels fall off”. Blaming others because one feels that they should be have been “bullet proof” is not reasonable. At least in my opinion.
I’m very sympathetic to all those who lost their assets, but I don’t believe a refund makes any sense at all (well, except to those who were liquidated). There was no guarantee that the price would be held “no matter what” and no guarantees on timeliness of the response. What was done was done per my understanding of “how it all works”. And let’s be honest here, no one “stuck there neck out for Wonderland” solely. They expected to get a very healthy return on their investment, that’s why they risked it.
9 Likes
The “intent to deceive” was based in the capabilities of the treasury. If they were not capable of preventing such cascades, then they were deceiving in that regard. That was a huge factor in the decisions to invest, leverage, mint, bond, etc…
1 Like
Thank you for those wise words