Burning treasury wMEMO will reduce total token float, meaning existing tokens are now valued more.
Why would you not want that as a wMEMO holder?
Open to counterpoints as I might be naive here.
1 Like
just burn it now, BORED SEEING THE WMEMO PRICE SO LOW,
1 Like
Have you guys ever considered that the wMEMO from buybacks could be used again to raise treasury funds?
I bet most ppl here have a very basic understanding that burning is guud and are voting for it. We capped emissions why burn it?
1 Like
the Treasury should be used accumulate profit, not to rise the wmemo price shortterm.
3 Likes
Wen 1. burning event? Need to warm up cauldron for comming revenues.
1 Like
I think this should be modified to either of these two options:
- “Afterwards, the Treasury Manager is responsible to set-up the schedule for periodic burns”. Otherwise, there’s no “periodic” if the Treasury Manager decides not to burn anything ever and do something else.
or - Change title to “Initial burn + discretionary burns”
1 Like
boredom is not a means to destroy future profit for temporary gain.
1 Like
If that’s how it is suppose to work then there is a bug somewhere because right now it doesn’t count dao held wmemo in the treasury part, but does count it in the supply part. Eg - on 1/24 the backing per wmemo was $50,400, but on 1/25 it was $48,500 at the same time the crypto assets had gone up (FTM was up 12% for example). The only explanation for the backing being down was MIM being removed to do buybacks, and it continuing to count the wmemo on the dao wallet as part of supply but not as part of treasury. If it worked as you said every buyback that occurred under backing price would raise the backing, yet we see it worked exactly opposite of that way in reality. (Unless you have another explanation for why the backing per wmemo would drop by ~4% while the underlying crypto assets were up it had to be the buyback transactions that did it.)
That means if we burn the backing should go up; at the current DAO wallet holdings it should increase backing by a sizable amount as it would be taking over 300 wmemo (at a current backing of $48,500 each) out of the denominator calculation.
1 Like
Well, if we had more transparency about the Treasury, we’d know for sure: [RFC] Periodic Treasury Reporting
2 Likes
I would say, instead of burn them, airdrop them to the long term holders without distinction. This would bolster the morale much more than a burning and reward the people getting shanked into the first phase of the project which was basically a ponzi. It will create a slight volatility because some of these people will sell, but they are selling even now.
1 Like
I love the idea that a portion of buyback tokens are airdropped to Hodlers. The rest can be sold later when the price rises. This incentivizes people to buy and hold as they will be rewarded.
3 Likes
Burning wMemo is only a short term fix. We need something better than just a quick fix.
Each burn is an opportunity for people to sell off their coins, plunging the price back down.
But if people know that they will be rewarded for hodling the coin, then that’s a good incentive to hold wMemo.
We did it with our Transhuman Coin. Hodlers share 2% of every transaction fee (buy or sell), and so far it’s working. People see the quantity of their coins increasing everyday and they are happy.
4 Likes
So no to burn. Yes to airdrops and transfer fees share.
2 Likes
Agreed it doesn’t make that much sense with this protocol less to stake with.
1 Like
Agreed and what is to say the current whales looking at the wMEMO market would not use this opportunity to their advantage again. Thus hinder the expected outcome, further fuelling disbelief in the project.
1 Like
There’s no way to completely remove the influence of whales from any financial market or project, but we can put in best practices to mitigate their influence… at least until a new solution is worked out.
1 Like
Agreed you cannot protect yourself from whales, what I would rather do is:
- Protect in the sense of making whales part of wonderland again, work closely with them and others
- Start employing best practices like not leverage or borrow against wMEMO, it’s the 2nd or 3rd time this has now happened and snowballed into a liquidation event.
Whilst I understand Abracadabra is part of the infrastructure Wonderland wants to utilise as a revenue stream, it seems counter intuitive to use the platform to make money from wonderland followers to then lose their revenue and their trust. The reputational damage seems far greater than the monetary rewards and associated risks of having frogs use wMemo to borrow and leverage against.
3 Likes
You are on point. Bringing the whales in and working closely with them will go a long way.
A Top investors group can be created for them, where they meet periodically as the major shareholders of Wonderland.
If they see the project as their own, and not just another crypto to sell for profit, they will most likely hold… the ones that doesn’t want to be part of the top investors group, if they sell, then Treasury can buy back.
…And I believe it has been proven overtime that leverage is counterproductive for crypto.
3 Likes
What would happen if we were somehow able to burn at the same rate as the rebases? Wouldn’t that fix the APY problem?
1 Like
Thank you very much for your reply and feedback, much appreciated. I hope others will feel the same way. (fingers crossed)
2 Likes