Where is this updated proposal? Can we view?
I personal did not lose nothing because I staked only, for me, the pools are too risky and donât have faith at all to invest there.
1 Like
I donât blame other people for my losses. I know the risk.
1 Like
It needs to be approved by @0xWicked before itâs published in the RFC area, he already knows I sent it and will review. Once itâs there itâll be available for everyone to review/comment.
2 Likes
Nor do i.
Im presenting the argument that this is not as âcut, dry, dismissedâ as youâll pretend it is.
We, as investors, were yold there are protections in place for the very thing that happened. Specifically.
Otherwise, we would have just sold. Obviously.
Selling for a loss is not the same as being Liquidated after being told specifically otherwise, by the very people youâre investing in.
1 Like
Nothing you said implies intent. From your point of view, I can understand the âdeceivedâ part, but not intent (as in, they knew they couldnât do what they said they could, AND said it to gain investment). Now, maybe you do have proof of intent, but nothing youâve said or shown thus far indicates that.
Regardless, I have no doubt that youâre very determined in your convictions. I was only posting to show a different view from where I sit to hopefully provide folks more than one side of a discussion/argument.
3 Likes
Absolutely, and thank you.
The deception lies in many of the posts, statements, tweets, discord comments, talks of treasury size/power, frogs stronk together, and sentiments to preventing the specific event that happened.
There was basically no damage to treasury during/after this event. Either, there was no intention to prevent, deception to investors as to the capabilities of itâs treasury, or it was gross negligence (even fraud, with a certain lense) to which should cause repayment or at very least a the understanding to what actually happened, and not just, âyou knew it was crypto, get over itâ This was supposed to be larger than crytpo, and then dismissed as âthe investors faultâ
Otherwise the treasury (as protection) was not used in the way that they specifically said it would be.
1 Like
I do understand your point, I just donât agree with it entirely. And thatâs ok, we can agree to disagree and Iâd still buy you a beer.
I do understand why you would think deception, really I do. I just donât think of it that way. I see it as Sifu having a discussion and saying what he really believes. Now, it wasnât successful, based on the one comment youâve posted, but it was successful if I take into account all the other comments Iâve seen from him. So thatâs just my view.
As for the protection part, I also disagree because their âbuyback planâ worked very well for me and several folks I know, who were very cautious in leveraging/borrowing and it prevented us from being liquidated. I know thatâs of zero solace to the folks whoâs assets were liquidated, but it did work. Just not at the level many expected.
At any rate, Iâm not trying to convince you of anything, just pointing out a different point of view. Iâll refrain from âspamming outâ this thread any more and wait to spam the new RFC thread! 
Hahah. Gotcha, and Understand that point of view. and great points.
But my point isnt about leverage, or those who stuck their neck out for the project. The leverage was the risk the we (those who were Liquidated) took, on behalf of the treasury on the basis that the Liquidation cascade was âpreventable.â
That being said, we were sold the idea that there would not be Liquidation cascade by the treasury manager (the person we pay, to responsibly hold our money, and invest it) in specific terms, even specific numbers were used.
Itâs blatant negligence (to the detriment of many people and their money, savings etc) or deception, intentional or otherwise.
1 Like
I picked a % because a specific number will leave a lot of people out. And as stated, Anything would be a help and really solid show of faith. What else would you pick. A bailout for something we had in our control? The number also was 25% not 29%. And im not disagreeing with the overall outlook. We were told XYZ about backing price//buyback and all that. Buyback DID happen. But was not automated. We all KNEW it was manual. So there again. WE are taking that risk. Language has never been tested before, same as the entire buyback system.
I do think it should have happened way sooner. There is no way they wernt aware of it. Do I call it mismanagement? Mmmmm hard to say. I think they held to the letter of the obligation, even if it was actuated in a less than timely fashion. Because of that, I would like some kind of love shown back to us. Do i expect it. No. Would i expect 100%? no. Thats a bail out for a poor choice of mine. Id love it, but thats not healthy.
I was able to lower my liquidation point from 1100 to 1000 with a 5,000 mim payback ( instant transferred from bank in to Coinbase) I then frantically tried deleveraging when we went below 1100. I was able to get the transaction to go through by raising slippage to 25% and by resetting the MetaMask account to clear prior translations. Just because I didnât lose my full position I still lost 11 memo, went down from .8wmemo to .55 . I can guarantee that this happened to many people who donât understand how to get transactions to go through under load.
I understood the risk, I understand why people feel wronged. I also understand why people who hadnât loaned anything would feel taken advantage of since all of us abracadabra users were all taking loans out to add to our position i.e. making more coins than someone not taking out a loan.
In my opinion the only thing to make things right here is unfortunately to do nothing. If people get their positions back but have 45k liquidations then ANYONE who is still holding a position or was liquidated below the highest reimbursement should get made right including people who panic deleveraged and paid massive slippage fees and also sold tokens sub 45k to lower their liquidation point. Sorry for rambling on but a lot of us got screwed here that had extremely safe. Thanks for listening.
1 Like
As was stated. You have a narrative your pushing.
Thereâs a big difference between. This mechanism will prevent anyone below from being liquidated.
&
We will buy back to bring price in line with intrinsic value.
Regardless of how you try to separate the leverage from the buyback.
If you donât leverage you donât get liquidated.
Your argument of we leveraged for the treasury is completely wrong.
You leveraged to make money for yourself.
1 Like
be fair and show all the information. You lost we get it but at this point you are spamming.
The backing price did kick in and the price was pushed back up, they didnât lie but in fact kept their word.
These buy backs are not instant and it was never stated they would be. You cant calculate 100% it will be at this price if I buy XYZ. It will take time to stablise the price. It was always known that there would be a manual buy back.
Leveraging always comes at risks in any market, you accept the risks when you make those choices. Its horrible and I feel sorry for you but you accepted the risks to do it. This is the real world. Money doesnt grow on trees
2 Likes
You made the choice yourself. You are an adult. Stop blaming people for your mistakes. We live in the real world not lala land. You are the one that clicked accept on it.
âOne of the main reasons I took loans from abracadabra was the many posts by sifu claiming and encouraging using abracadabra. The main post I keep thinking of is the one where sifu claimed that he would drive over to daniâs house to wake him up if we were getting close. Instead he sleeps through it and gets liquidated himself. If anything he should be taking some of that 276 million in his wallet and make things right himself!â
2 Likes
Just my opinion on the matter, but looking forward this could lead to a dangerous understanding of the support in the frog nation.
If it passes, what i can see is people will begin to over-leverage and take that risk because there will be a net, this is not how you manage risk. Wonderland is incredible enough to have a backing price and that is more than enough to maintain the token.
Basically, they took on as much risk as possible, did nothing towards accountability and then blamed the devs⌠if this behaviour is rewarded i dont understand what will drive people to make sensible choices. It sucks but such is the life of investment, these are lessons learnt on DYOR and not to just palm off all sense of responsibility.
If we plan on rewarding those who took the risk to gain even more, how about rewarding those who put the time and effort in to manage their risk and keep an eye on the price as we are in a dip ? Love this team, Love the devs, Love the project
3 Likes
Lol. This needs to be pinned.
1 Like
I agree with your points. Thinking it through, my last full paragraph counters the full statement I was trying to make and was written out of spite. Iâve taken responsibility for my actions and I was just putting it out there that not only the liquidated were hurt by this crash.
1 Like
I think a fairer proposal would be.
Hey frogs,
We thought it worked this way. Itâs not Anyones fault but we are wondering if the frog nation would be open to helping those liquidated under the backing price.
I think people would vote for that. I know I would.
Liquidation hurts. It just does.
1 Like
I can see where you are coming from but you cant do that because you would be supporting reckless lending.
Thats how the banks crashed in 2008, what would stop vulture capitalists coming in making reckless leverages and expecting the wonderland bank to pay for their mistakes. Crypto is extremely volatile and it would doom wonderland if they did that, the backing price wouldnât last a week, then what⌠we all lose.
If anyone wants to take extra risks for high return thatâs on the individual. You have to make those choices yourself and own them in exactly the situation that has happened now when they go wrong.
You have to own your own mistakes no matter how much they hurt. This is part of being an adult living in the real world.
1 Like