Curious why we would use BSGG instead of just giving the stable equivalent of the BSGG. People who redeem will probably dump it immediately which wouldn’t be great for people still farming BSGG rewards. If we paid stables instead of BSGG this could honestly make farming BSGG more attractive.
4 Likes
I do not support redemption, I’m a treasury maxi.
3 Likes
I fixed this to make it more clear. Thanks.
2 Likes
After reading the comments and thinking about it more, I think we might be over complicating things.
Option 1 & 2 are essentially the same thing, just debating how “liquid” is our BSGG.
I think maybe we just go back to the basic and keep it “simple” to make sure its future proof and dont have to be revisited all the time with a new investment like CTA.
Should we allow redemption at liquid backing, yes or no ? The TM is to determine what is liquid and what isn’t. Farm allocation / BSGG / CVX / CTA / budget allocation, etc.
We also need to be able to plan long term and not for 3 months periods over and over. Potentially, the more deal we make the more semi-liquid asset we have and we won’t be debating each one, why should we be debating the BSGG?
We could debate if we convert them to stables, but I say that can be left to the TM as well.
At the end of the day, it’s about what is best for the protocol while being fair to those whose leave, not about having the best exit liquidity we can provide.
5 Likes
I like this, quarterly redemptions of WMEMO @ liquid backing, paid out in stable coins USDC and MIM if needed.
3 Likes
Still against any type of redemption. So a no vote for me.
2 Likes
For those that are saying a contract for quarterly redemptions is way more difficult, i’d look at what teams like Temple are doing for team payments. Its really not a lot of work to fork a contract and load it up with stables. But still i think both methods should work.
It seems to me the biggest thing to figure out now is what to do with BSGG. I am in favor of paying out stables (mim or usdc) for the value equivalent to 25% of our BSGG allocation as part of the redemption process. Are there arguments against this?
2 Likes
I like option one but yes I can see the Bsgg getting dumped pretty fast. I also would suggest maybe a buyout on redemption and supply the mim in place of it to slow down the sell off of Bsgg.
1 Like
I have counterproposed USDC as the asset to be used. To note the treasury has currently:
17-18 Million MIM in Avax: This has been being utilized for buybacks
80-85% of 40 Million USD worth of CRV 3POOL-MIM: which is 32-35 million MIM in ERC20.
10 Million MIM approximately supporting the BSGG/MIM and wMEMO/MIM AMM LPs.
That is a total of 60 Million MIM that is held by WL.
There is:
70 Million USDT - Which most can be readily converted to USDC.
18-19 Million USDC (And abit of DAI).
Remainder is:
23-24 Million in WBTC
11-12 Million in ETH
11-12 Million in CVX
8 Million in MATIC
With the remainder being in small amounts Spell, and rewarded tokens and small random tokens.
3 Likes
I suggest making a “token” to stake into a farming contract (a copy past of rev share) and then BSGG can be farmed according to a schedule. Like a daily release of little bits every day for say 1 or 2 years.
2 Likes
Fully support option 1.
1 Like
USDC is a good choice for stables if MIM is needed elsewhere.
I agree that the TM should decide what’s liquid and illiquid.
1 Like
How is the treasury manager supposed make any plans if they might have to redeem money every three months? This seems like it would be highly disruptive to treasury management and change the options for what they could sensibly plan. It also introduces an incentive for a quarterly arbitrage and speculation about Wonderland’s stability. Obviously, issues could come up at any point without warning, but this seems to institutionalize a process for constant speculation about the state of Wonderland with little benefit. People can sell their wMemo on the market if they want to exit. We already did RQ once, so anyone who wanted to exit at backing had their opportunity. Can’t Wonderland just focus on making use of the treasury?
3 Likes
We can’t really move forward unless wmemo can sit at (or above) backing, in order to do this we need a constant guaranteed redemption process
2 Likes
I don´t get why we there has to be another redemption/RQ and that people have to get the imaginary backing price instead of the market price … let the treasury manager do his job and grow the treasury and do stuff with the treasury so we can grow this as a business instead of throwing the money away.
But if there has to be a RQ2 how about we make it just interesting for the long term holders that want to get out ?
Instead of letting people with a lot of money arb the shit out of the treasury again is there a possibility to just let people RQ who bought over the backing price ?
That way at least the RQ has a value for the long term holders and in the same way greatly discourage whales to arb.
3 Likes
I think once there is a redemption mechanism, the chance for “whales” to arb disappears as there’s a re-establishment of a price very close to treasury backing.
Buyers - irrespectively have taken the risk, a gamble you may say - that the price of wMEMO would outpace that of a pile of dollars effectively.
In instruments that have a price and trade every day, there is no room for loyalty. As the market was open every day and every hour to reverse bad trading decisions.
5 Likes
As the treasury manager, this does not affect the management. Akin to fund management industry constantly manages through providing liquidity for persons to go in and out of a fund.
Truthfully, if you feel otherwise - you can build a portfolio on your own for the long term and be in full control of those decisions.
If, there is a liking for a dao to exclusively invest into VC for the long term, thus converting all liquid capital injections into illiquid VC investments, then a new DAO as such can always be created. Remember, that the trick is to go into small investments, so size of investment capital over 25-35 million will become quite disadvantageous.
3 Likes
<3. +1
If the treasury manager himself is stating this will not impact overall performance, i can’t understand the no-votes.
If WL finds a strong investment at ~$10m it does not mean we could just put in $100m and get linear returns. Read about the challenges of any corporate treasury (such as AAPL) sitting on scrooge mcduck size piles of cash and you’ll understand.
2 Likes
The liquid redemption sounds good. On the whole I like the idea of a three monthly exit plan. But to be honest, I believe most, if not all people here are in for the long haul. We would have exited already given then rage quit option. So it doesn’t really matter to me. I’m looking forward the fruits of a long term investment relationship. So I guess the option that keeps strength in the treasury is best in my opinion.
1 Like
Opening these windows will likely just result in a series of small quarterly pump and dumps, as the market brings the price close to the buyback price and then essentially drops down slowly as sellers who didn’t plan as well exit, until the cycle repeats.
Why not simply authorize quarterly allocations for buyback up to [95% - 105%] of the liquid backing price? Let the team execute these buyback and burns, and allow the market to bring the price back up near the backing price? Since over time buybacks will create a similar floor. In time price will rise above liquid backing, and the public market itself will be sufficient.
This approach also has the effect of giving long term holders the best outcome.