The only people who should be able to rage quit are those who held tokens before the Sifu story came out. And only for tokens purchased before that time. It’s absurd to allow people to buy a share of the treasury at a discount (ie, after Sifugate). I’m disturbed by allegations that whales - who are supposedly buying in at a discount post-Sifu, are now pushing to open up the treasury so they can essentially raid it.
2 Likes
Simply don’t sell under RFV and people won’t be able to arbitrage. But if people are willing to sell under RFV, it’s their problem, and other people should be incentivized to buy it.
1 Like
There’s no way to satisfy everyone. But a simple solution is that only those who purchased tokens before Sifugate can rage quit, and can only redeem tokens acquired before that time. Otherwise, we allow opportunistic, predatory whales to come in and effectively buy treasury share at a discount. Apart from the community, the treasury is the most valuable part of Wonderland. The opportunists know this and want to get their unfair share on the cheap and - appallingly - at the expense of holders who’ve endured this downturn.
2 Likes
The only people losing are those selling below RFV.
Whales buying at current prices are still in a better position compared to those who bought at a premium, even if they wouldn’t be able to directly cash out, they will still have more influence (in governance)/earnings (from vc/yield) per $ invested.
Amount in the treasury per wMEMO does not change if whales are allowed to exit or forced to stay.
So unless you think larger treasury = higher profits (in %), then there is no difference for holders between allowing whales to exit or forcing them to stay.
2 Likes
Winding down the project entirely is completely different to the rage quit option. I think you will find sentiment around the rage quit has been fairly well received, did you not see the discord during the winding down vote compared to now? I guarantee a lot of the NO votes are in favor of the rage quit option.
3 Likes
which would be the ultimate proof that DAOs dont work because the majority is too stupid for their own good.
all this does is benefit whales at the cost of the treasury. i can basically guarantee you that OP is either a retard or is holding a huge bag bought below backing. likely the latter.
this “scam” that people could sell at backing to then buy in after it to increase their position size is a fantasy. as soon as this gets a yes vote the whales and / or bots will scoop up every bit of liquidity left to then earn a nice 8 figure profit from treasury funds. people who attempts to sell at backing to then buy back will be burned. there is literally no benefit at all for the majority of bag holders.
if you want to benefit the average holder you need to guarantee that arbitrage is not possible. and no matter what you do you NEED to pull liquidity. otherwise this is just a quick method for the rich to become a little bit richer while everyone else has zero benefit at all.
its astonishing that people dont see this very obvious scenario…
no wonder people are laughing about wonderland.
1 Like
Not pulling LP is absolutely unacceptable. This will be gamed by whales and bots. Rage Quit is RAGE QUIT. For people who want to leave. Not for people who sell off and rebuy and who then have MORE than people who have faith, support, and believe in continuing? That is INSANE. This is perhaps the greediest, most selfish, non-frog thing imaginable. You want to rage out? Take your backing and get the F out. The very basic core principle of this is LEAVING, not getting ahead of people not leaving. And you think you should audit anything? I’d never trust someone this slimy.
And 5 days of shutting off buying? Come on.
I’d vote a real rage quit, not this.
2 Likes
Hey folks it feels like there is a lot of frustration in some of the responses to this proposal. I am just a small frog but here’s how I see it:
- This is a business just like any other business. The purpose it to build something that is value additive from an economic perspective
- Currently this business is trading at an almost 50% discount to book value. Everyone here is intelligent and probably has some money in crypto. If we all thought it was worth substantially more than what it is available for on the open market then let’s be honest – we would be buying
- Criticizing the poster of this RFC for buying WMEMO really feels backwards to me. That’s great! The whole point of this exercise is to build something that people want to buy…
- “Rage quit” really feels like a misnomer. There is $2 of treasury for $1 of wmemo right now. allowing shareholders (you, me, all the other frogs) to have their $2 is not a crime. It is just good business
- Most of us (presumably > 50% of circulating supply) are not going to leave the project. And! for those who don’t leave the market price of the token will be much higher once we honor the treasury value
- It is definitely definitely not a good thing to trade under good value because it means that everyone would be better off through a liquidation. The majority of the frogs do not want a liquidation and that is fine but no one here wants to be trading under book value forever right…
tldr; we would very much like for publicly traded wmemo to be worth at least what is in the treasury! otherwise we are not doing a good job of stewarding the project. We can achieve this goal in the short term by taking this proposal. Long term anyone who cashes out their share of the treasury may turn out to have made a good decision or maybe they will look like a fool if those who remain do an incredible job of building the investments etc. This isn’t personal – it is about building value for the community. Please please let’s stop obsessing about whales and sifu and dani etc and just move forward.
2 Likes
Lets get it, enough discussion. Time to vote.
1 Like
I propose you add some conditions DCF:
- remove LP
- window 48 hours
- give some bonus to those that didn’t ragequit?
I voted no. Not because I’m not for rage quit option. Just not like this. I think the professor’s way of doing it I much much better.
1 Like
This makes sense, as it does not reward short term investors looking to make opportunistic profits off of Good intentioned promise. At the time this promise was made 99% of holders bought above backing price and THAT is who the promise was made to.
1 Like
nobody here even knows the real backing price lol
all these posts sound like pure greed and zero intelligence.
No. My intensions are not to exclude anyone at all.
If you staked your assets along the way it will be very easy look through a wallet and see when they are bought.
In case of people have sold, then bought, then sold and maby bought again, it’s like any other asset. The tokens sold, doesn’t count in this equation.
But if you sold all your assets in order to awoid liquidation, the way is through Dani. What he is going to do, I don’t know. But he mentioned about it at AMA.
There’s literally a link in the OP with backing price
except that there hasnt been an audit, nor do we know the contractual obligations towards assets like BSGG, nor do we know the exact amount of circulating time, memo and wmemo, nor does this account for if dani burns his tokens or not, etc etc.
the number on the dashboard has always been inaccurate. plus backing price is current value of assets in the treasury. if you would try to sell them off the assets would lose value at such an amount so the backing price would have to adjust for that, in case it would pay out stables only.
but its obvious that nobody heres thinks at all about anything.
I agree. First priority should be to prevent raiding of the treasury, if this is possible.
Second priority is taking care of genuine investors who got wrecked and want to get out.
But sadly for those who got wrecked, the health of the project and eventually returns to those who are willing to stay and contribute constructively to the project should take priority.
We are all down, but if paying back people who want to get out now with as much or as little as they can means also decimating the treasury and the long term viability of the project to the benefit of the whales and arbs some of whom may have orchestrated this entire debacle to me is unacceptable.
If there’s a way to look after those who were genuine investors by paying them out somehow without playing into the hands of the whales and arbs I would support it.
I support this decision.
It is clear the the DAO is split between short-term investors and long-term investors. The short-term players want to get our with profit / break even, trading against the backing, and the long-term investors want to just look forward and stop all the talks of buybacks, rage-quits, etc.
Accepting this proposal means cleansing Wonderland of all short-term actors, and lets the remaining players look forward and build a better future.
As has been mentioned, the downside of this cleansing is a reduction in total treasury size. Some people believe this will have a negative impact on the future growth of Wonderland. You could make a decent argument as to why that could be the case. I urge you however to consider the negative impact on the future growth if we do not cleanse Wonderland and get a fresh start from all whales trying to arbitrage and buy votes.
I also urge you to consider the positive benefits to the Wonderland DAO if this proposal were to pass – it proves that investors can actually get their money out at backing price (albeit currently only through larger governance votes and processes). This will increase faith and legitimacy in the project.
@dcfgod I am wondering if we should consider performing the rage-quit at a slight discount to backing in order to make it more enticing to people who are against the proposal.
Perform the rage-quit at for example 5-10% discount. Burn the received wMEMO. This spread between rage-quit price and backing price is then given to the remaining holders per definition.
I however doubt the average Wonderland investor could understand this concept. But perhaps its worth a try. I would still vote yes. Just get me out, please.
There is a fundamental flaw in the calculations in the document provided. The assumption is that the eligible WMEMO is the same as the total supply of WMEMO you divide to get the backing price. The calculation of the backing price isn’t just any arbitrary calculation. The documents of the treasury say the following:
Why not include Non-DAO supply? That’s the same as saying that millions of the buybacks that we did are worth 0. The treasury invested millions in buybacks, and they also are considered in the backing price. Otherwise, the past investments are worthless.
The documents of the protocol affirm:
“For LP Mints such as TIME-AVAX Minting, the RBacking Per TIME is calculated differently because the protocol needs to mark down its value. Why? The LP token pair consists of TIME, and these LP tokens will back each TIME in circulation - there is a cyclical dependency. To safely guarantee all circulating TIME are backed, the protocol marks down the value of these LP tokens.”
All the circulating TIME is backed.
I agree with the number of eligible WMEMOs. However, just because you want to do a rage quit doesn’t mean creating an arbitrary supply to get more money from each WMEMO. It has always been included in the formula and displayed on the website.