[RFC] Wonderland 2.0

Governance is too complex and I really don’t like the rage quit option using snapshots, too many cases to consider (staked wmemo, LPs, etc), just remove liquidity days before the redeeming period.

1 Like

Thank you for clarifying, I was a little puzzled. I do agree that those who have not sold are likely more long-term supporters of Wonderland. But as to what’s fair/good it’s hard to say. Imo we should vote to determine what the community thinks is the right thing to do in this matter.

I’m starting to think more and more that we should exclude the redemption question from this proposal and give it it’s own proposal. So that we don’t get a mixed up vote. What do you think?

Also @echovl


I have to quote @0xHedgehog :
“On the other hand, if there’s no exchange at backing price, the people who bought in below backing would be incentivized to stay with the protocol and increase the size of the treasury since dumping would mean they lose from the vested performance fee and all of that money would go into the treasury.”

Id rather see this scenario play out. Even though I lost a shit ton of money Id rather help the protect to rebuild and create a product thats worth to keep fighting for. Especially the fact that I lost money forced me to stay and as the backing price is rather low Id still lose. Well…thats how I thought first. Due to all the circumstances I was forced to engage with the community in the forum etc. and now my mind has shifted from getting out ASAP to … this could literally work how can I participate and be part of it.
I think decimating the treasury now and letting people go is fair and understandable yet I think Its still better to use the funds to restructure and rebrand and to make people who wanted to rage quit believe in WL 2.0.


You may have moved the date back to the 28th, but how sure are you they did not have some tips? This line negates the voice of the community. Selling is an opinion available for everyone who does not feel at home.

1 Like


The date is far from final. I also vouched for it to be moved back, but we wanted to make sure the community is on board first. It is an important topic as there are people who have been here since october who sadly still want out. I think they deserve the option, and they will still be selling at a loss.

1 Like

Maybe the issue of a seperate proposal to deal with the problem of redeeming wMEMO at backing or not can be dealt in conjuction with your guys’ proposal through this one?



This is what is supposed to be in the first place. However since this sh*t show I believe it will be much transparent and strong once it’s stable. I’m rooting for WL team.


I read through the proposal and it seems well thought through and I am heavily in favour of this. From an investing/ tokenomics standpoint I am most likely not knowledgable enough to give constructive criticism on potential improvements but in case you need someone in your communications team and/or a translator for future medium or twitter posts (Italian/ German) hit me up. (Bsc and Ms degree in communication/PR)


Yeah I agree with you on the oversight and advisory board. I think a pool of advisors is a great idea that the team can reach out to. The oversight is concerning. 4 to 6 hours to understand the community and the actions of the team and take action is unrealistic. Plus if these people are qualified to oversee them we should hire them to do the job itself because they would know better than people like Harry lol.

It needs to not be too top heavy. Good leaders are important but we need a lot of doers too to support the leaders. This can get expensive. One role I see as important is something similar to a scrum master in an agile environment. Someone to be the go between the community and the team to help communicate realistic expectations and timelines while ensuring priorities are understood and followed.

Some areas of this proposal seem a bit slow to me too. I’m worried that we need to move to revenue share quickly to show the true value of the token and get us back on track. It’s a tough balance to take out time doing some things right but also getting confidence back quickly. Best way I see that is get people out who want out then start revenue share quickly.

Leaning towards the professors proposal right now but elements of this are really good.

Some of this stuff is delusional. This is not a country or a company. Seeking consensus on every decision or involving too many people in decision making will hinder treasurers and leaders from responding to things as they happen. Some of this crap should be left to Danny.

1 Like

And oversight is a waste of money. We are oversight. Dox people and hold them accountable through governance.


What are your thoughts on a permanent inverse bond mechanic where those that need to dissolve their wMemo can get paid out at treasury value (- airdrops) and a further discount vs treasury depending on how long they are willing to wait. For example those that want to be paid instantly are paid at RFV-25% after two days RFV-15% after a week RFC-5%. This eliminates any need for buybacks and allows the treasury (and therefore all wMemo holders) to profit as long as these wMemom tokens are burned. It also gives time for the treasury to unwind positions if necessary to payout people that want to exit and cannot do so on the free market.

1 Like

Look at what happened to IceDao after the “rebranding”… sure, incompetence was through the roof… but if we follow the same path we will be scalped. A suicide in my opinion.

1 Like

I really like this one. I feel like this dude has a really good grasp on what is going on and what is needed to fix this situation. I would like more information on the author, but I would vote for this! I specifically liked the two types of investment pools that have been shared. I would likely be using a combination of both. The first to grow and compound funds. The second to start receiving a regular payout! I also like that this becomes a true DAO that isn’t focused on Dani. For folks who’ve read The Starfish And The Spider. The catalyst starts things, brings the people together and fades away. I think this is the best plan we have and we need to support it. What’s our next step?

1 Like

The timing of the cut off date for Wmemo redemption feels arbitrary. i purchased wmemo on the 29th because Danny assured us we could get out at treasury and I was trying to cover my losses. Understand your trying to stop whales from making money but dt you realize how much it screws other people. Think that anyone should be allowed to exit at treasury price which would create arbitrage therefore moving market price back up to backing.

1 Like

@0xHedgehog @LarryFisherman After thinking about it a while, I do think this is fair. Thank you

1 Like

I dont agree with a number of details in the full proposal and this RFC leaves out some crucial details. I’m not voting for it here considering the only choices are to go with it or to keep Wonderland as it is, which is clearly not the only 2 options. That in itself seems like you are forcing people to agree with your proposal or suffer under the old structure. This is not the way!

Buybacks should not happen period. You want out then sell. Don’t deplete the treasury because you think you made a mistake with your investments. That’s life bro.

The wording of the full proposal doesn’t sit well with me and it seems that its trying to give whales what they want at the expense of the little frogs. Reword your proposal along the lines of what The Professor suggested and you might get my vote.

Setting a date for people to exit the DAO for the backing price is really silly and unfair. Only justified by a puerile hatred towards “whales”.

Let whoever wants to go out, it’s the least after the shitshow we’ve suffered, and let’s move on with the people who believe in Wonderland.

It’s not just the fairest thing, it’s the smartest one. The price of wMemo would automatically rise very close to the backing price and it would be a joy for the frogs (something we already deserve!!).


Agreed and edited.

  • Merged Board and Committee
  • Reduced responsibilities of committee (some tasks moved to Financial & Policy officers)
  • Reworded and specified responsibilities of Committee

As a follow up to my earlier point you also handcuff those who want exit but bought after the 28th to 2.0. Surely the better idea is let those out who want out at treasury price (could be done through a 72 hour redemption window) and then proceed with the frogs who want to stay aboard with 2.0. Wmemo holders shouldnt be discriminated against based on when they bought. Want to re state this would also create arbitrage which would correct market price.