No redemption at backing price, if you want to leave just sell your tokens
3 Likes
Agree a separate proposal/snapshot on this topic, as per the three options you have laid out would be the best idea to let the community decide
Hi, someone knows if we will give the option of swapping WMEMO for Spell? Abracadabra’s snapshot hasn’t started yet, but they already have the contracts ready on github: Added initial merge contracts by 0xm3rlin · Pull Request #50 · Abracadabra-money/magic-internet-money · GitHub
1 Like
Not just a full re-brand but a new token migration, new leadership, new everything
Imagine we approach a DeFi team to fund their product, then they learn about SifuGate.
We have to completely change the project from ground up.
2 Likes
-
No redemption at backing price
-
Snapshot before liquidation cascade/sifu gate, I’m not a liquidated frog but we have to think about those who where here for long time and belived in the protect and were basically kicked out from the project while a sleeping. Yes risk management is important an so on but that was practically impossible to deleverage due congestion and timing.
3 Likes
surely we need some incentive for people to buy at current prices? Not saying it has to be out at backing price, but what would be the reason given current proposal?
My biggest issue, and the reason I can’t get on board, is the governance structure. Specifically the Advisory Board and Oversight Committee. It seems way too complex
The oversight committee of community members working part time just doesn’t make sense. They have pretty serious responsibilities. Imagine a handful of community managers being responsible for approving/managing Harry Yeh.
I also don’t see the point of the advisory board. Daniele and the Treasury Managers would be more than enough.
I think the Professor’s structure is much simpler and more streamlined
- Strategy Officer - Dani
- COO - currently this is kind of Wicked’s job, but I don’t think he has any help
- Treasury Manager - This could be multiple people based on strategy. As Dani said on the AMA Harry and Bastion would be two options with different investment strategies. We could add a yield expert as well
- Head Dev
They can present budgets to the DAO and can be approved if they need to hire people.
7 Likes
Thank you again Larry for all the time spent on this. Happy to see the date for the ragequit option moved further back. I think another discussion is whether the date should be moved even further back? Options are:
- BSGG snapshot
- Before first liquidation event
- Before second liquidation event
- Keep it as it is
I’d love to hear peoples thoughts on this.
2 Likes
@LarryFisherman, My question with regards to the backing is all the buying below backing must have had equal sellers if not more, surely there should be a reward for people who have held and not sold below backing/ even added more?
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
4 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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
Hey
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?
https://dao.wonderland.money/t/rage-quit-option-preproposal-discussion/13090
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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)
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes