[RFC] Bastion Detailed Proposal For Treasury Management

Detailed Proposal from Bastion Trading & TheSkyHopper

  • Keep DAO going for at least 2 months and appoint Bastion Trading as a Interim Manager for the time period
  • Keep Dao going for at least 2 months and find alternatives to Bastion Proposal
  • Screw it - wind up Wonderland

0 voters

Allow Bastion Trading to be an interim manager of Treasury and maybe continue managing partial or whole of the Treasury.

Treasury Management / DAO Windup / Leadership Direction

Proposal - Bastion Trading / TheSkyhopper to manage or advise on Wonderland Treasury - 1. General Discussion - Wonderland Governance Forum (wonderlandforum.xyz)

Objective: Find at least a reprieve from Windup - and provide alternative means of restoring both market value of TIME (and thus MEMO, WMEMO) and faith in the treasury management.

My name is Masahide Hoshi from Bastion Trading. This is my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/masahide-hoshi-84467b1b7/

I rarely think my past is interesting despite a few short interesting stories, and there’s no point to go into this here - but there you go: upfront - doxxed.

I started a informal discussion yesterday (Jan 28th, 2022) on treasury management with the intention of receiving feedback to further form a proper proposal. Clearly, there’s a sense of being torn to just utter bitterness - and its obvious many have been hosed.

Before, I go into more details of proposals (I will post 1 more separately in relation to inverse bonding), I will make a pitch why irrespective of whether you (rest of poll voters) want us to be involved or not, there is certain value to extend the life of Wonderland.

  1. There are ways to at least create a floor the price of TIME, MEMO, WMEMO without winding up.
  2. There is an awesome community that has come together, and rugged as the sentiment is, its still so. Its an community that is still an envy of the crypto space, and I truly believe such can receive dividends over time.

I implore you consider this - for crypto is eternal unless its ended in suicide.

Alright, now lets get into this - and start with what is near - what are we going to do?let’s try a timeline here assuming that option 1 is voted positively:

Upon Installation as a Chief Treasury Manager or Advisor:

  1. We will first liaise with Danielle (no choice I think anyways - but optimally rest of community) and look to optimize the portfolio, we will look to disseminate what we have done in terms of direction of the portfolio for at least the time being.
    There are plenty of assets which can be deployed form the wallet, including MIM, USDT, USDC for example (such low lying fruit).
    We can look to optimize the sizing of MIM/WAVAX pools (I suspect its not beating the IL).
    I’m not actually sure whether there’s a strategy on other assets like WBTC, WETH.E/WETH, FTM for example in terms of sizing beyond some discretion previously.

We’d love to set some parameters for non-stable directional positioning.

While, I don’t know if its staked (but I can assume not), there’s 5mm USD worth of TIME which should be staked or burned in the treasury - I’m betting its not getting the benefits from rebase.

  1. As part of treasury an important part is making sure that promptly there’s mechanisms to burn MEMO, WMEMO that has been bought or otherwise - as this is a way to truly reflect the treasury with no circular references (same with TIME).

  2. As such, I would propose separately that a inverse bonding (thanks to Olympus Dao Papers here)
    This is a mechanism that can allow for TIME to be able to quickly move back to a value of Treasury backing via arbitragers, but allow the DAO to continue.

  3. Wallet Handling: we would like keep the multi-sig status currently (or voted to improved perhaps) as we would only want to seek to be a advisor/manager to the treasury assets allocations but not the transactions.

Medium Term Plans:

We have a vision for medium term plans beyond just steadying the ship. Here are some next steps:

  1. Some of you asked about VC investments: we don’t do enough ourselves, and its not our strength. Anyway, I think when it comes to allocation, as a trading shop who might be involved from time to time, there’s conflict of interests plenty of times (do I keep it for us or give it Wonderland?). Planning:
    A. Finding and voting in a VC team and some advisors. Making returns on VC is going to be a kicker to Wonderland - and has to be done independently of the stable side of returns.
    B. Determining a capital allocation to this with a vote from DAO. Certain parameters can be set first (each investment size, etc).

  2. Adding other investment advisors and managers:
    A. Whether on day 1 or later, we think if practicable to find other managers beyond ourselves to diversify strategies and squeeze alpha for us everywhere. Other votes have been in place for something similar and we support them in principle.
    B. Either for DAO to vote a risk management person (or team) to handle the oversight of such teams.

Ongoing Transparency:
While I think there is already good transparency (i mean the portfolio on the website…) we can do better. I am so happy to have monthly AMA or Podcasts to go over what the status of the treasury and markets are with the community.

Bastion Trading:
While I described a bit on podcasts, let me give you a background to us here more clearly:

We were a group of traders (3 of us, and picked up more along the way) that started in 2014 with our own capital and savings (it was about 7-8mm USD, not even probably some NFTs today), and we’ve multiplied this significantly from that amount by today - we entered in Crypto in mid 2017 and never looked back - but this timing is similar to many others.

You can see our linkedin site here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bastiontrade/mycompany/?viewAsMember=true

We have a few partners, and quite a few employees ranging from tech to trading - and I’m certain you can find them via a search via the linkedin link above. Also, if you look at our posts, you will find some results of our activities, including a dollar (so think MIM, USDC, USDT) based investment returns over 60% (net near 50%) for year, while not taking any major risk on directional positioning on tokens. These returns have been audited by a big 8 accounting firm.

I will post some credit references because I think our lenders should trust us (otherwise, they’d be stupid to lend to us):

Truefi Loan: TrueFi | Uncollateralized Borrowing & High Yield Lending

Maple Finance Loan:
(Look for Bastion Trading)

Our website definitely needs a overhaul but its www.bastiontrade.com.

Our Twitter Handles (also check Bitfinex Leaderboards)


Negotiable for us. For it would be nowhere near the 5% charged I read (annualized I hope) - which I think absolutely a fleecing. Fees have come down to really get near traditional rates, where we’d be looking at a fraction of it.

We only want to be compensated what we all can think is equitable (performance based, a percentage fee - whatever it is) - and that we can navigate this relatively successfully.

I hope this covers as much - but I’m sure you’ll still have questions.


Thanks for this proposal. Folks, we can easily do it! We just need to new reputable people for multi-sig. Thrive Wonderland! I’ll shortly post my thoughts here.

I am against “AIP #7”, whose reasons i have mentioned here: AIP #7 - Expecto Patronum: A shield for all frogs - #52 by sourabh - Governance Proposals - Abracadabra Forum. Due to this, I find the number one priority is to get reputable people for multi-sig so that we can work independently (& honestly, predictably).

WL should be seen as an organic entity. We can evolve for better. I agree with your Medium term plans about VC investments. Given our strength, our community, our supporters, I believe we’ll never be short of opportunities to become seed investors in good projects. With one hurdle crossed (of surviving WL), we can later vote for VC team/advisors if need felt.

I find your proposal to be well thought and I agree with all of it. Once again, thanks for making this proposal.

I also shared some views for WL future here: Proposal for future of Wonderland, worth a read.

Edit: Vote for survival of WL has passed :heart:. Dani thinks that community is divided, maybe, but we should remember that proposal itself was biased & if top three “Yes” votes, instead voted for “No”, we would have got 75% majority. Do those who bought token on ~27 Jan represent the community which has been here for months & is 80% down? Community has spoken that they don’t want to take backing (if treasury tokens are at good price, then it’s roughly 50% loss) & leave but want WL to continue.


I also agree that this is a fairly well thought out proposal. And I definitely agree that any rush decisions or winding down at the WORST possible time, when all markets (not just crypto) are down should be avoided at all costs.
If this goes to RFT, I would like to see some additional information/references regarding the Bastion team members – kind of counter to the whole DeFi idea, but unfortunately this community got burned and lost its trust. I think your proposal would mesh well with another proposal that I believe was introduced under the topic “Don’t Panic” by userId sech in the General discussion.
Unfortunately I seem to be unable to vote, not sure why?


Who are these people presenting this “Expecto Patronum” prposal? It says “Abracadabra Team”, but do we have any idea who is behind this?

The proposal is perhaps good for Abra but certainly it is not for us and final solution by Dani shouldn’t be to either get backing or this AIP #7.

I believe “Abra team” represents the views of all of their core developers and must have been approved by Dani.

I fully support Bastion taking over the treasury- visibility and professionalism will be essential for the recovery of Wonderland. How can we get a pass to pass this through/place in the WIP section as a proposal?

1 Like

I’m not interested unless we have a list of candidates and a competition where we can crowd source investigations and ratings.

Otherwise we will end up with a bunch of chancers which will wreck the new project.

Yeah. Currently anything seems better than what have now.

1 Like

very impressive. I like the proposal but we would have to do an AMA, full audit on the treasury and then put it to vote. Im not interested in the merger with abra atm.


I support the proposal but Daniele & company has to be out of control of the treasury wallets completely as soon as possible (even now is too late). This would be the hard step.

Everybody that will maintain the project & treasury has to be doxxed + at any point we the investors need to have executable possibility to stop what is happening with our funds to ensure not being rekt like it happened during last months.

Assure overal & detailed transparency of all operation with funds (doxxed receptor’s wallets of future investment etc.).

Can Masahide Hoshi from Bastion help with clarifying that?

Possible AMA.

It is way too hard to conduct the fund through such a big comminity of investors as we even do not have any functional system good enough for planning, executing, conduction, voting, revenue, srewarding for work while all trasparend & controlable… so much is missing as all it is in hands in highly suspectable individual - dictatorship. Has to be changed otherwise we will get totally mentally & financially sifuned by Dani & company.

1 Like

AMA - no problem!

I am happy to explain some ideas.


I’m really impressed!

this proposal seems really well thought and taking into consideration the harsh reality, that there isn’t a single solution for the huge amount of problems we’re facing.

I just did not understand what is your connection with bitfinex/tether/Paolo Ardonio.

We are not small in trading size (nor the largest either) but over the years we have gotten to know a lot exchange operators, sometimes up to the management - like Paolo at Bitfinex. As you may know - Tether and Bitfinex is closely related themselves.

I swear we live in a small world, and I can tie so many relationships that are a close two degrees of separation almost every which way at most.


I’ll comment on address doxxing:

I’m very hopeful - that the DAO would ensure that there is such transparency of the investment funds such doxxing (identifying and auditing) wallets and destinations. This is generally standard for professional funds (we have crypto funds ourselves that have big 8 auditors and administrators). Otherwise, how could anyone be comfortable of managing - risking that such persons could stand accused of wrongdoing (when we didnt even do so)?

1 Like

This comes first:



Pretty decent proposal, but I need to hear more about the plans for vc investments. That’s the main draw of wonderland and a more fleshed out road map needs to be added. The wmemo holders should be the main beneficiaries of said investments with small allocation to wonderland team (ex. 5% goes to team 95% to token holders).

1 Like

Perfect, let’s move forward. Shall we set a tentative date?

This all sounds great. Your medium term plans hit every point that was on my mind. Yes for me. I would even consider 3-6 month “trial” period.

go search bastion proposal in trustpilot… the feedback is to bad

not sure what you mean cos i only find trustpilot about bastion-invest which is a scam and has nothing to do with bastion trading.

1 Like