The reason rebases seemed profitable at that point isn’t mints - it’s because the supply of time was low and the buy pressure huge, due to the hype.
1 Like
Yes true, I am making it clear that there was a game mechanic present that is not there anymore, one including Time. Removing the Time liquidity really solidified that fact, and the migration to wMemo on sushi.
There is no compounding factor to consider as meaningful. There is nothing to benefit from getting more and more Time. Every wMemo is getting the same rebases with compounding included. If you get more of something that everyone else is getting, it doesn’t add anything unique to you. For example, I could buy wmemo now and collect my compounding rebases for 1 whole year: I will get X amount of Time accumulated. OR I can wait to buy wMEMO until the whole year passes, and when I do, the same amount of Time will be present. So buy now and get same Time accumilated later, or buy later, and get same Time.
1 Like
Thank you for sharing & it was informative. Maybe I’m biased here, but how about for those do not see farming as a viable earring option here? Instead of constantly be distracted whether rebases should be gone, maybe the majority of us want to see how the profit sharing model structure would be look like first and then all these noise will be dissipated.
I’m not putting my wMemo to bsgg farming concerning any inherent risk might be involved included, but not limited to not getting it back my wMemo already devastated in value though someone posted it was not the case here.
In short, I believe just owning rebases with bare minimum apy newly set in near future should be rewarded in one way or another as means of restructuring & that should be the real discussion here. At least pretend like you care & intend to carry out what you what you promised on rebases instead making all of us how incompetent we are. Plz stop projecting your guilt & failure as if it was our fault from the get go.
You mean rev share with gaining more wMEMO?
I think all this is a discussion about the reality of the situation, not really about projecting emotions.
The rebase apy could be 1% instead of 70k% a year, and the Time price would still drop and be net zero sum for stakers.
Technically they where never profitable via rebasing, you was getting profit from price appreciation - they have always been stock splits
Let it go, literally no benefit to making these changes for the following two reasons:
-
Since everyone is in agreement that they are not in fact value creative or destructive as they currently function (other than diluting the modest portion of time which for whatever reason is not currently staked), this is a total waste of developer resources to achieve no real gain in token functionality.
-
Given that we just redeemed 20% of the wMemo in circulation, if this trend continues there is a very real possibility we will want/need to re-enable minting in the future, in which case holders should naturally want the anti-dilution effects that rebases provide. Would be easier to execute this transition if the underlying rebase function is still in place.
1 Like
This is a single transaction.
We turned off minting there is no reason we cant turn off rebasing. Also minting TIME seems to be a bad idea for us to generate income to treasury - would be better to reuse the wMEMO bond contract that was used on FTM at one point.
Minting is not a means to generate income. It is a treasury fundraising activity, effectively the opposite of athe redemption process we have already put in place.
This is analagous to how open end funds issue new shares to investors during ETF and mutual fund purchases. This does not create income for the treasury, but it does provide additional capital to pursue further investments.
1 Like
Exactly! And because we will be bleeding funds every quarter due to that redemption process we will soon be in dire need for additional funds I fear, so the sooner minting is started up again, the better imo.
They mean the same thing.
If we want to sell the treasury wMEMO we can put it in a single sided v3 slightly above backing.
Personally dont see anyone buying in right now because of uncertainty.
They do not mean the same thing.
Income is related to a P&L.
Proceeds from sales of additional shares/tokens are financing cash flows.
Sorry if this sounds pedantic but I think it is important to clarify the language on this piece. Counting proceeds from new investors as a component of income is a defining characteristic of a ponzi scheme, which I do not think is an implication you intended.
Two additional points (the second one is not meant to be condscending, I just want to clarify the tone because I feel it could be read the wrong way)
-
If the RFC proposal is meant to reduce complexity, why does your suggestion for a new token release and migration to handle future minting operations not seem to work against that goal?
-
I don’t see why your assessment of whether people are or should be buying wMemo is relevant to the conversation.
where do i suggest a new token?
And this is a discussion my comments are just comments not things editing the RFC.
Maybe we need some kind of OHM-less future for wonderland manifesto. An umbrella proposal that would include things like turning off rebases.
1 Like
TIME=MEMO
WMEMO= MEMO Price4.5 Index number
So TIME and WMEMO are linked to each other.
TIME will never go to 0 if it does WMEMO will go to zero
Let me explain to all the people that want to stop rebases, yes rebases is a stock split etc etc
People like the passive income idea, with the rebases you can have a passive income, you always have the same % but if the pie grows you sell the small bits and keep your original pie piece even if its smaller %
People don’t like coins that go up and down you sell once and that’s it, they like the passive income idea even if its fake at the moment.
BUT! if you lower APY to sustainable levels you can make the APY true with buybacks or reverse bonds with the treasury revenue, look at olympus it works, look at Hector they are deflationary!.
So why disable something that can work and be real and not a ponzi, if the APY lowers tremendously it can become sustainable and work as intended.
I tried to make it as simple as possible for everyone to understand if you start that rebases are stock split fake etc you just dont understand what i am saying! Go check sphere videos they might shed some light!
In my opinion APY should go at 100% or even lower, as much as it is needed to be sustainable, we should use reverse bonds or buybacks and quarterly redemption to ensure a stable price, bonds should start again for the extra revenue on top of the treasury management. We should try to follow what works and improve on the previous mistakes.
2 Likes
You know i did say “tend to 0”.
I checked sphere videos and they turned off their rebases, so… we should also turn off ours is what you’re saying?
Rebases just unnecessarily confuses the average retail investors imo, why do a fake passive income idea when we can do a real one via rev sharing?
3 Likes
First off I am not convinced it is fake due to the compounding.
Second: Rev share is nice but you have to come with a good replacement. A few BSSG tokens a day does not classify as a worthy replacement.
So turning it off now is a dumb move and not needed as it does no harm to let it run.
We are doing stupid things enough with those blasted quarterly redemptions bleeding funds all over the place. Lets not make it worse by chasing of the few holders we still have.
1 Like