Agree with The Rage Quit protocol suggested. Lets vote and execute. Then we know where we stand and those that want out are out and those that remain can remain.
I like Option A and a lot of what “The Professor” has recommended. They make sense.
I am a holder of wMEMO since Nov 2021 and I DCA on the way down. Still down a lot and still HODLing because I believe in the premise of this project and what it can and will do in the future of DeFi.
1 Like
I mean thats what the RFC is for no?
1 Like
Completly agree for option A
Definitely option A. Let those who want out get out and let’s get moving on already.
Just use buybacks, no rage quit.
I support this and appreciate the effort of the professor and all the other contributros who are willing this project forward! Cheers!
I also agree that we should establish the rage quit or other solution before moving on. Lets get that out of the way first so we can then unite and move forward with these adjustments the porfessor and other proposals have suggested.
Would choose option A.
I like option C, rage quit should not be allowed as we don’t know how bad the treasury will be depleted, so no rage quit, just do buy backs as we please which could bring profit to the treasury.
I will endorse the proffesor initiative over the other 2 proposals.
i believe wonderland 2.0 is overcomplicated …new tokens gmemo…i believe we need to keep things simple in order to get more people onboard.Continuosly I need to explain to my friends who invested in wonderland , the difference between time/memo/wmemo,…they are compitely lost about the rebases and all the technical stuff.
Bastion proposal also seams fine, but the key is who will be the chosen one managing the funds.
as we dont have proven records of the different treaury managers , maybe we can split the treasury management giving the professor a part of the assets to manage, for instance the wallet funds an other part as Liquidity Pools and vaults to Bastion por instance or maybe 50/50
my preferred option is option A
1 Like
I honestly think we will get this through soon. Invester sentiment is still rather negative so we definitely need some sort of push forward and get things going.
Shallow shallow, all i see is concepts, take this to tradfi theyll laugh hard
Agree with this proposal, can or do we have to vote ?
Can or where do i vote
No vote yet, will be announce when/if it happens.
1 Like
I’m personally against any plan that offers buy backs at treasury value. I believe that buy guaranteering an exit at treasury value, we are subsidizing sellers through draining the treasury which leaves holders carrying the bag. Efforts by Dani to enact a price floor cost the Wonderland treasury $300M in two weeks. I would be supportive of a proposal that established a price floor at a discount to the treasury.
Further, I don’t think the proposal as written is appropriate to take to a snapshot. In order to effectively comment on the Professor’s ideas he ought to be invited to submit his own RFC text and he should be given the opportunity to adjust the proposal by responding to the comments. As written the proposal feels like a take it or leave it offer; in which case I’ll leave it.
3 Likes
I’m am in with Option A
1 Like
I’ll take option A. Lets get this up for a vote please