I agree, i bought way above backing price, so did sooooo many early investors, why punish those that got in early, only those that bought late, and below a backing price will win, this is basically almost the same as winding wonderland down and paying the fooking WHALES, vote against it. Make them sell at current price, make them lose, why make them rich, at early investors expense?
2 Likes
I agree to rage quit so that we can tell FUDers after that event to shut up âwhy did you not rage quit?â.
Also, I will only agree to the professorâs proposal to rage quit (shut down liquidity, 48 hours, yada yadaâŚ)
Once again they wonât lose. If you keep them in, all youâre gonna get is the red candle of the century when market price reach backing. And that will put the project back months.
1 Like
Hi Guys,
I wanted to make this comment here as I believe there are too many proposals offering different things and wanted to simplify things in order to get Wonderland back on track to doing business and flourishing once again. I suggest the next vote should be between these options:
- Keep buybacks running for the time being, as it adds value to the DAO;
- Offer rage quit solution;
- Do Nothing and we move nowhere.
I will outline why I think Option 1 (continuing buybacks) is the way to go. Option 3 will continue dividing our community and we wonât be able to move on and focus getting new management appointed which will need to be the next step after this vote. Option 2 has the potential to deplete our Treasury overnight by a substantial amount, as its impossible to know how many people will choose this option (I believe it will be more than the 40% of people that voted for a wind up).
Option 1 is the way to go for several reasons. Most obviously it wonât deplete our Treasury instantly by such a large amount like Rage Quitting will but more importantly the spread between our buyback price and backing will be all profit which is distributed to the DAO.
Let me explain. If backing is $38K and we buyback at $28K, the $10K spread goes to all wMemo holders and then these tokens can be burned at a later stage once people have exited, condensing supply to lift the backing price. With buybacks, we decide the price we buy at and if its profitable for us to do so.
Many of you are worried about whales taking advantage or the current arbitrage in place. Whilst we cannot prevent those who took initiative in buying during the recent calamity from making profit (this is after all a free market), once we do the first buyback, LP slippage prevents whales from taking future advantage of any arb. Also, the LP which is owned by the DAO makes money with any buyback and sell volume, which is an important factor.
If the DAO does a large buyback at these prices to get the price to around $37K and those that want to exit then dump, the DAO makes money again as well as the LP. These tokens we buy under backing value can then be burned at the appropriate stage. The cost of these buybacks might be $10 million if we do it correctly and give profit to the DAO, whereas the cost of rage quitting might be $200 million and not give any benefit.
Both Dani and I spoke over Discord yesterday and we are on the same page that this is the way to go.
I would like to push this vote forward as fast as possible, so the DAO can get back to business and come together as a community once again.
The Professor
19 Likes
I can get behind these 3 options as the vote. I think it is well stated and shows the risks we should keep in mind.
We should push this as a revised proposal so that we can get traction and start moving. Maybe an AMA is needed to rally everyone to a single proposal for the first vote.
Letâs move forward together frogs!
I see some problematic passages, considering how gravitating your figure has become within comunnity recently, so I feel the need to demand more from you:
Can you present concrete numbers? We have a pretty good article that shows a different scenario, here:
Would be nice to see more math/projections on this more then a few words. Also the burn argument can be used for those tokens left when rage quitting.
Again, numbers, Iâm amongst other users that where pushing for treasury transparency, we can very well take some accountability. And what is this âdone correctlyâ ?
3 Likes
I like it, this approach is a very solid and straight forward plan to advance onward in way that benefits both sides of the recent arguments. Obviously option three is foolish, anyone who would choose to do nothing would be supporting regression, not improvement. Option 2 is a good solution only to those who desire a quick and selfish exit, The result of the dao acquiescing the requests of those who fell so hard and desperately would result in only turmoil via the doubtless outspread of community and treasury funds. It would be a very questionable challenge in order for the dao to regain a worthwhile degree of stabilization within the treasury at that point. But with buybacks, well its the best of both worlds! the only problems I foresee are the obvious unknown and potentially volatile future market dynamics while the thing plays out. This idea demands patience and I think that is a very important point. The treasury focuses on bringing wmemo to its backing and that point, people who want out should be able to make up their own mind without any hesitation.
Playing devils advocate here, but if your suggestions are implemented I forsee many of the people that have been aggressively wanting an out changing their minds and staying. which isnât a bad thing by any means (except for a few sour souls). In fact it would promote the community to engage more thoroughly on embracing the idea of equal community consensus moving forward.
Iâm strongly in favor of both the first 2 options, but I agree that buybacks would be the easiest and best way to move forward.
The only real problem with buybacks is that there has been a lot of misinformation spread around and now most people in the community donât understand how they work and why theyâre healthy for the project when done under the backing price. There is really no disadvantage in doing buybacks under the backing price, and the most technical community members are well aware of this. However we should make sure that everyone understand how this works, so that we can agree and move forward in a unite way. We should have learning material and formal math proof supporting buybacks.
I think buybacks could also restart in the very short term since they were never voted against by the governance, so an official governance vote shouldnât be needed to restart them. As Daniele mentioned yesterday, they could start as soon as the treasury audit is completed.
I am definitely for option 1. We just have to think how to efficiently do the buybacks as it requires manual job and frequent checks
I agree, letâs do this
If we are going to allow a rage quit option, go with what âthe Professorâ has recommended. I will be voting no to this as investing and the risks associated are what we all knew when we got into this. People can ârage quitâ anytime they like. This is a proposal for those that are mad or upset with the decisions they made to not sell earlier and to allow them to get more money back out. Live and learn. Do it differently next time. I have made a LOT of bad investment decisions in my day. I learned form them. This is the real world and its not other peoples responsibilities to bail you out for your bad decisions. I donât see this as a good solution for those that are wanting to see Wonderland continue.
(I am currently holding since November and still holding so I am not speaking to anything I am not doing myself)
2 Likes
Hereâs the mathematical proof that buybacks under the backing price cause the backing price to increase.
Given:
TREASURY_VALUE: The USD value of the treasury excluding WMEMO (and TIME and MEMO)
CIRCULATING_SUPPLY: The supply of WMEMO (and TIME and MEMO) âexcluding the supply held by the treasury
BACKING_PRICE = TREASURY_VALUE / CIRCULATING_SUPPLY
BUYBACK_VALUE: The USD value spent for the buyback using treasury funds
BUYBACK_SUPPLY: The amount of WMEMO bought back
BUYBACK_PRICE = BUYBACK_VALUE / BUYBACK_SUPPLY
We can easily find that:
NEW_TREASURY_VALUE = TREASURY_VALUE - BUYBACK_VALUE
NEW_CIRCULATING_SUPPLY = CIRCULATING_SUPPLY - BUYBACK_SUPPLY
NEW_BACKING_PRICE = NEW_TREASURY_VALUE / NEW_CIRCULATING_SUPPLY
Now letâs say that the buyback is done at a relative price compared to the BACKING_PRICE
BUYBACK_PRICE = BACKING_PRICE * RELATIVE_PRICE
We want to calculate how much the NEW_BACKING_PRICE is, and how it compares to the initial BACKING_PRICE. We can do this thorugh a few steps:
NEW_BACKING_PRICE = NEW_TREASURY_VALUE / NEW_CIRCULATING_SUPPLY
NEW_BACKING_PRICE = (TREASURY_VALUE - BUYBACK_VALUE) / (CIRCULATING_SUPPLY - BUYBACK_SUPPLY)
NEW_BACKING_PRICE = (TREASURY_VALUE - BUYBACK_VALUE) / (TREASURY_VALUE / BACKING_PRICE - BUYBACK_SUPPLY)
NEW_BACKING_PRICE = BACKING_PRICE * (TREASURY_VALUE - BUYBACK_VALUE) / [(TREASURY_VALUE / BACKING_PRICE - BUYBACK_SUPPLY) * BACKING_PRICE]
NEW_BACKING_PRICE = BACKING_PRICE * (TREASURY_VALUE - BUYBACK_VALUE) / (TREASURY_VALUE - BUYBACK_SUPPLY * BUYBACK_PRICE / RELATIVE_PRICE)
Finally, we get to this equation:
NEW_BACKING_PRICE = BACKING_PRICE * (TREASURY_VALUE - BUYBACK_VALUE) / (TREASURY_VALUE - BUYBACK_VALUE / RELATIVE_PRICE)
We can notice that the ratio NEW_BACKING_PRICE / BACKING_PRICE is given by the following fraction:
(TREASURY_VALUE - BUYBACK_VALUE) / (TREASURY_VALUE - BUYBACK_VALUE / RELATIVE_PRICE)
From this, we can extract 3 cases:
RELATIVE_PRICE < 1 (BUYBACK_PRICE < BACKING_PRICE): in this case the denominator is smaller than the numerator, so: NEW_BACKING_PRICE > BACKING_PRICE
RELATIVE_PRICE = 1 (BUYBACK_PRICE = BACKING_PRICE): in this case the denominator is the same as the numerator, so: NEW_BACKING_PRICE = BACKING_PRICE
RELATIVE_PRICE > 1 (BUYBACK_PRICE > BACKING_PRICE): in this case the denominator is larger than the numerator, so: NEW_BACKING_PRICE < BACKING_PRICE
TLDR: Buybacks done under the backing price benefit every holder by increasing the backing price, and they have no real downside.
1 Like
I cam get fully behind this. I think at this point we definitely gotta move forward.
Why are you assuming there will be buyers of wMemo going forward? It could well be no one wants to invest in Wonderland anymore, in which case what you would be doing is trading liquidity (actual tokens with value like stablecoins) for worthless wMemo tokens. In other words, giving money away.
In the end, all 3 are terrible options.
Who are you? Until you answer this question, it doesnât really matter what you or Dani have to say. You could very well be Sifu for all we know.
1 Like
In support of moving forward with these options. I donât think rage quit will pass in its current form anyway. The threat of a âbank runâ from holders reacting to the appearance of a mass exodus would could have the significant psychological effect of actually perpetuating a mass exodus.
Buybacks should resume soon anyway as I believe Dani is just waiting to bolster the multi-sig. It would still be good to put it to a vote and confirm that the community would prefer buybacks to the other two alternatives.
Who are you 0xSuperFrog. How do we know you arenât Sifu?
As for rage quit, why do you think this will pass given the 55% vote to not unwind. At least with buyback we have some action that could allow folks to exit at or close to backing. If it doesnât work, we may get votes that are currently for buybacks, but not for rage quit to flip on a future vote.
We need to focus on what will have a chance to pass a snapshot vote.
Who I am is irrelevant. I am not putting myself up to manage Wonderland. He is.
Both buybacks and rage quit are bad ideas.
1 Like
His potential hire into management isnât relevant here.
Per your earlier comments, you believe all 3 options are bad and you believe that there may be no market for wmemo. So, do you have any action that you want to take to recover or move forward on our investment?
Can you just push the vote forward and add supporting maths ? WL has been in limbo for a while now, we need to move forward⌠we need the vote ASAP, offering 3 options sounds great. Just add mathematical evidence for option 1 and 2 then get voting
1 Like
I disgree with the rage quit proposal. Fundamentally letting a group of anonymous people take a fraction of the treasury is unfair and opportunistic. The biggest problem with rage quit is there is no guarantee that this will not happen in the future again. What some group people want to rage quit again in the future then what? Allow some group of people that maybe attacking the system to raid the treasury again? I would even compare this to a bank robbery holding us up threatening us, and we are voting to allow this to happen⌠absurd in my opinion. The only time the treasury should be dismantled is if the DAO dissolves. People who want to rage quit can just sell their shares of Time, memo or wmemo. Just because you own a stock and you get mad at the management doesnât mean you can take a portion of the companyâs assets. You just sell your stock.
Alternatively, there are other options :
- Since the problem originates from the treasury not initiating a buyback when price fell below the backing price, initiate this immediately.
- Then to compensate for the late action, burn all wonderland tokens transacted from the point of inflection to the point of buyback
2 Likes