The professor sounds like a management consultant in the tradfi space… Can anyone verify this and please explain why that would qualify him to run a 700 million dollar defi fund…? No offense to the professor as I do like a lt of his ideas, but it just doesn’t seem like a good match on the surface as management consulting and managing a defi treasury are two completely different skill sets
He explains it very well at min. 10:40, don’t need to see it all Wonderland Roller Coaster (part 4): The solution? - YouTube
1 Like
I like Professor proposal but I’m strongly against a rage quite.
2 Likes
The written English in option A does not make sense to me. It says, a rage quit solution where “those that exit don’t receive up to $67 million of the treasury”. There’s no context where this $67 value comes from either… What would the people rage quitting then receive? Because with how this option is written, it just says they won’t receive this much, and people who stay will receive a APY multiplier. No specifics on if the rage quit here would be a backing price or if it would be instead to buy back to backing price for everyone. This proposal is poorly written and needs edits. The rage quit option written in the actual Professor’s proposal is written well and makes sense to me. Why even have a link to the Professor’s content if whoever wrote this doesn’t seem to understand the content they’re pulling from?
1 Like
Option A seems the fairest solution for all the frogs. My vote would support A.
Fully agree that the community must put divisiveness behind us.
Time for cooperative solidarity to realise mutual benefit.
The treasury and investments remain solid, let’s not spit the dummy now.
I again ask myself, why the hell we should give a big portion of our revenue generating treasury away to ppl who were investing more than they could afford to lose and didn´t do teh DYOR?
In the end we all will suffer, because there´re less funds to generate more revenue. The bigger the yield, the bigger the revenue to share. Ez pz lemon squeezee. And those that cry about quitting: Stop being selfish and think about others besides your egoistic selves. EVERYONE lost in the liquidation cascade. Yet, the project was saved to become better.
You either participate, or quietly sell what you still have left and move to the next best crypto project to speculate on. Amen.
2 Likes
option C from me as I don’t like recent adopters profit from long term holders .
I love what the professor has to say. This person will need to be vetted, even if it’s just by Dani/Multisig owners. This might be tough for us to do but we must trust our frog nation leader.
Option C. If you wanted to ragequit, you already should have.
1 Like
I don’t think this is a good idea. His only opinion that deserves attention is that the DAO construction is too complicated. The problem is generally solved by a good wiki and FAQ.
The rest of what he proposes is to reduce the emission, thereby increasing the capitalization of the coin. This does not require special skills.
He probably likes it so much because the community wants to dump all the problems on someone. So it won’t work.
1 Like
Option A is the best at most fair in these circumstances.
i pray daniele save timewonderland
cant believe people are still saying this… two months of being treated like shit constantly and loudly and yet you still ‘hope’ that the guy who chose to litterally ignore the thousands of comments on both discord and this ‘MOST ACTIVE FORUM in dao’ and go ahead to put a half assed proposal that benefit NO ONE but big bags and arbs.
You gotta wake up one day!
2 Likes
very true, i´m also very dissapointed