Restore intrinsic value to Wmemo and Wonderland asset (with poll)

I believe it is time for wonderland to take ownership of its greatest asset which is the treasury. Farming as a service works especially in the present market condition. There is zero reason for a treasury of this size to lose money on buybacks - nor was a merger to the benefit of wonderland. Usually the larger bank acquires the smaller bank.

We need to fully implement shared revenue.

Farm as a service which wonderland and Dani and team know well.

Focus on restoring the intrinsic value of the token by offering this shared revenue model. Fewer people will see benefit to shorting an asset that yields them a passive growth of value.

Stop additional treasury depleting activity (to include investing) until we have restored the value of the token Wmemo to at least pre 68k wmemo level

Focus 100% on a clear restoration of value strategy

Full transparency of funds (good start with FUNDS tab on the wonderland app)

Appoint team from overlapping timezones so that someone is always at the helm

Appoint marketing and communications to counter-FUD strategies

Once we have stabilized above 68k Wmemo levels start the process of burning all liquidated supply. Burning supply after stabilizing the price range will help prop up price in the next range - while the revenue share model will keep holders firmly entrenched.

Next focus on a goal based APY reduction (not the punative model some daos use) Utilize price to phase out rebasing - example

At 50k wmemo apy = x example 60,000%
At 60k wmemo apy = x example 45,000%
At 70k wmemo apy = x example 30,000%
At 80k Wmemo apy = x example 25,000%
At 90k Wmemo apy = x example 15,000%
At 100k wmemo apy = x example 10,000%
At 110k wmemo apy = x example 7500%

Use this model until apy = 50%

Once price of Wmemo is at a sufficient level Apy will be zero. However once Wmemo was to enter specific ranges earlier holders are made whole and will likely stay due to revenue share vs taking an opportune exit.

Let Dao vote determine all levels of apy. This will assure those who hold on the riskier end of the curve are always rewarded because right now people are only holding because they are down - that should never be the reason to hold a blue chip asset

Finally, stick to ONE clear and concise direction. Execute that plan and after that plan has been executed move to the next stage of the plan. No more zig zagging. Zig zagging doesnt create momentum it creates head winds. All of this communication of plans that go unexecuted become opportunistic fud.

It was great PR to execute buybacks, it showed our word was honored. It also showed the flaw in buyback mechanics. It was not good PR when we still havent received air drops of assets the community was promised. Also not good PR to discuss a revenue share plan one day, then the next drop a merger plan on the community. Obviously bad communication strategy. The chaos with the sifu matter will be determined bybthe community how to remedy.

Top priority for this Dao and for Wonderland should be to restore the intrinsic value to the token asset.

*I do need to add, this proposal absolutely keeps Dani at the helm, but DAO would vote on the implementation of this direction. Only when the chief doesnt operate within dao voted guidance would any consideration of removal be considered. Bottom line Dani is a great general with flaws, he knows how to make money. You dont remove your best general in a war for survival.

  • Agree we need to focus on restoring value in the asset using our treasury
  • Disagree

0 voters

1 Like

There is no point to keep the APY which is still completely misunderstood.
One more time: there was never a chance to get 80K% APY, is just a token distribution mechanism and an attraction which actually caused the FOMO and later the fear

1 Like

The apy is downside protection - a stock split that becomes valuable if it increases in value. It is not a guarantee of profit unless you realize the gain. Nothing is for that matter. It compounds and if you realize a gain then it is very real. The apy based on staking % was the ponzinomics of it. With Wmemo everyone would essentially be 100% staked because its wrapped. No more ponzinomics. Warren Buffett never called APY a scam, he called it the 9th wonder of the world.

The apy being worthless discussion is what was most misunderstood, if not for the APY rebase i would be down a whole lot more then i presently am, so i can say the apy is very beneficially at some levels of price but not all levels.

1 Like

APY doesn’t offer any downside protection if it’s generated by just creating new tokens. It’s just inflation. Otherwise you would have the magic way to create value out of nothing.
The price of TIME is programmed to go down at the rate of inflation, WMEMO factors that out.

Exactly, wmemo which is a staked asset factors that out, however your rebase is based on apy correct? That additional incentive you recrive every 8 hours increases your holding and if you realized that gain at the very time would you or would you not have gained?

The apy model i proposed is strictly for the purpose of getting the value back above certain levels of price, at those levels the apy is reduced until at some point the token holds enough strength with price and revenue share to completely have made long holders whole “while providing the increased amount of tokens”. Also once the price exceeds the apy limit 'meaning the price of Wmemo climbed high enough to zero out an apy entitlement, the intrinsic value will be held in the revenue share model. Apy will then not be utilized unless price falls back below agreed apy inplementation ranges.

Apy is the carrot in front of the horse, always has been. However its not like you didnt receive anything. The entire community was holy hell about whales rebasing and exiting, was those profits not real? Apy is a very beneficial downside protection.

to put it simply:
Let’s say the interest is 1% a day, everyday 1% of WMEMO supply is added and distributed.
Does it mean everyone is suddenly 1% richer? NO, everyone has still the same as before because price would factor that in (TIME going down).
The only way for the APY to work is the game theory around the rebase tokens, if nobody takes profit then everyone keeps getting richer, but that doesn’t happen (other than in FOMO periods).
So while you can have an APY of 5/10/50/100K % a year, the price will factor that in and nobody gets richer, in reality some do and some loose (e.g. by selling / buying at loss or profit).

The whole point of Wonderland is not the the APY, doesn’t matter how big or small, but the treasury.

Correct. And that’s why people call Wonderland a ponzi.
Transiting to wMEMO, we should have killed $TIME immediately and start to distribute revenue. Which is still missing… you know the $1M/day :wink:

I dont disagree with you in your example, but again the key is “realizing the gain” apy is fiction unless you sell, then its very real otherwise its simply an IOU if you hold it. Now i do not believe it should be viewed as a guarantee in 365 days it shouldnt even be marketed in that manner, its better to be called a holding incentive for when you realize gains.

However, where it does benefit is this. Previously the discussion was that on average a person with 50 Wmemo would possibly make 2k per month in the revenue share. Now just as you said, you dont gain an inch if that inch is also taken away, unless you sell the inch. And when you sell there will be a buyer because they want to increase their holdings to increase revenue share.

I am not of the belief the APY was bad, i believe it was associated with the wrong calcation. The olympus model based apy on % staked and unstaked. Then it was looked at as punative when olympus had to rate cut and cap apy. Caused massive turmoil every time.

Instead of punative rate cuts we making it goal based cuts based on price level. We shouldnt be doing apy once price is above say 130k, their is more then enough certainty in the market if price reaches that level if profit share is occuring. Then if a person with a small holding decided to sell becausw profit share was too low based on minimum holding, then at least they have a bit more to sell from the rebase.

The minting of bonds was the issue. Bonds created new supply that was dumped on the market when vesting matured for a discount and that spread was the profit to the seller. However that also led to downward price pressure. Providing rebases isnt the same as dumping new supply on the market you never intended to keep anyway.

I have made alot from the rebase, i have never sold “perhaps should have sold top” hindsight is 20/20 but point is those rebases saved me from much more pain then im already in, so their is absolutely downside protection. My breakeven is much lower because of Apy.

Agreed with everything you said.

Moving this back to visibility.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.