[RFC] - Amendment & Clarification of Quarterly Redemption

[RFC] - Amendment & Clarification of Quarterly Redemption

  • Yes, this provides proper clarification

  • Yes, but this need more clarification

  • Make No Changes

0 voters


[RFC] - Amendment & Clarification of Quarterly Redemption

Link to previous [DAO Discussion]:

[DAO Discussion] Amendment & Clarification of Quarterly Redemption


The objective of this proposal is to clarify some aspects of the original proposal as well as do some minor amendments.

Provide a High Level Overview

  • Add the explicit notion that the Treasury Manager should look at minimizing the impact of assets being redeemed.

  • Clarify the intent behind how assets are to be distributed.

  • Modify some wording of the original proposal to reduce gaps.

Provide Low Level Details

To address the required clarifications, Objective 3 of WIP 9 will be the main subject of our modifications.

For reference: [WIP #9] - Quarterly Redemption Option for Holders

  • A paragraph to add consideration on how the assets should distributed in order to limit the impact on the parties involved will be added.

  • A paragraph to better explain the intention of redemption and how the value per wMEMO is to be calculated will be added.

  • To remove some of the confusion, it is proposed that we rename “VC assets” to “seed assets”. This will align better with the proposed definition in the original WIP and make it more clear that VC investments like WIP 11 do not fall under the “seed assets’'.

  • Additional changes to wording in order to increase overall clarity.

Most modifications would fall under objective 3 of the original WIP. Here is what the new version would look like:

Objective 3: Assets considered as part redemption.

Illiquid assets, assets allocated to the revenue share farm, and a portion of seeds assets** will not be added to the redemption price per wMEMO.

No additional exit fees or penalties will be enacted or deducted from the redemption price.

The redemption price and assets allocated per wMEMO should be calculated based on the circulating supply of wMEMO. The distribution of seed assets allocated for the redemption should also be calculated based on the circulating supply of wMEMO. Both, the redemption price and the redeemable assets per wMEMO will be indicated in the redemption breakdown provided prior to the whitelist period.

Before adding an asset to be redeemed “as is”, the Treasury Manager will consider the consequences of doing so in order to preserve value and limit the impact that redeeming the asset may have on the holders, redeemers and the protocol. As an alternative, the affected protocol will be offered the opportunity to buy the assets eligible for redemption through an OTC trade at market price (with the possibility of negotiating a lower price) prior to the redemption period. If a deal cannot be reached the assets can be sold OTC to someone else, redeemed or the value-equivalent of the token can be added to the stable portion of the assets being redeemed.

In the event of an unforeseen situation or issue around assets not covered by the proposal, the Treasury Manager will use their discretion in an equitable fashion for holders and redeemers with an allowance of up to 25% of the asset redeemable.

**The value of up to 25% of any seed assets that are considered liquid will be added to the redemption price. The final percentage allocated will be determined by the Treasury Manager and announced as part of the redemption price prior to the redemption period.

Seed assets: For the purposes of Redemption, “seed assets” are defined as both liquid/illiquid assets generated from seed funding investment from the treasury To fall under “seed assets”, the investment does not require equity as a result. A Simple Agreement For Future Tokens (SAFT) investment would also qualify.

Business and/or technical requirements of the implementation of the proposal

No business or technical requirement other than the Treasury Manager taking the changes into consideration when the redemption period approaches.

Since an RFC is a “work in progress” Proposal, not all of these points need to be filled out from the beginning. They can be added over time as the RFC evolves into a mature Proposal.


Provides proper clarification, as the vote also indicates. Not sure what to comment tbh :laughing:

Would be nice if the 20% wanting more clarification comment what exactly they miss :thinking:


This seems a little confusing to me. Should there be specific language that defines equitable like up 25%
of asset redeemable divided by the number of wmemo whitelisted for redemption. Does that make sense so that all of 25% can’t be allocated to few redeemers as was done with bsgg last time?

1 Like

Could reword for sure if you have a suggestion, unsure how to make it crystal clear. That said the paragraph on allocation before that should take care of the issue we had last time.

1 Like

How about one small word add I highlighted in bold


Looks like these are some clear improvements. Definitely a step in the right direction.


Love it, I think redemption will be a valuable tool for strategizing trade options for future TM’s. I suggest redemption amounts values are selected well in advance before the date of distribution as well. Releases should be considered on multi redemption basis in order to create a better analyzable metric.

If we are able to acquire multiple seed assets we will better be able to use redemption as a valuable way of potentially adding value to wmemo in a long term indirect manner.

1 Like

I think we either need to not include bsgg in redemption or close LP. But one needs to go before next redemption it’s killing our own bags.

1 Like

Yes Nal, you’re the best

1 Like

Hi @NalX

Great post; but I have a q regarding the BSGG.

Would it be possible to have the BSGG at redemption bought back via OTC from betswap itself? So then the people who redeem don’t destroy the bsgg price again and keeps the protocol healthy.


They could indeed, that is one of the extra “guideline” being proposed here. Could be OTC with anyone, but offering the protocol a chance I feel is reasonable and a decent way to maintain the relationship.

Are we moving this to WIP before upcoming redemption?

As discussed earlier, offering the USDC equivalent of the asset is a simple and logical option for the TM/TA to do when he/she considers it to be undesireable to add a certain asset to be redeemed.

Can you add this to the amendment?

Would become:
“If a deal cannot be reached the assets can be sold OTC to someone else, redeemed or a money-equivalent of another (stable) token can be included in redemption.”

1 Like

Ah yes! I was sure I already had that in, thanks!

What about this wording ?

@Deal @jclemons

I’m thinking we should also change the “Treasury Manager” wording to align better with WIP 15 and the current situation where we have no TM. Any suggestions ?

In his RFC, @yieldchad used:

Should we use the same ? Worried someone will question who’s “relevant”.

Maybe we could just add a disclaimer ?
“In the absence of a TM, the redemption process will be managed by other elected representative as per WIP 15.”

1 Like

I agree should be aligned to avoid confusion or misinterpreted.

1 Like

I think something along the lines of the disclaimer you added would work.

1 Like

Topic has been approved for WIP: