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!!).
2 Likes
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.
Market price not really important. Treasury is.
4 Likes
I like this proposal and really appreciate all the work that’s gone into it.
The questions I have really are about governance. I think the idea here is very in line with the Olympus way of working. Where the community is very involved in many decisions and there’s a real focus on that.
I don’t get the feeling that this community wants that…at all. Spending time in the discord I think it will be like herding cats, painful and slow to get the smallest thing done.
Wonderland is supposed to be a VC investment fund - and the best thing we did before was to vote to give the Treasury Manager control of what to invest in and what VC moves to make. If we hadn’t we’d still be talking in the chat about if betting is a moral investment or not and who thinks AVAX will go up or down.
My feeling is people want passive income through Revenue sharing - and as much as they like the DAO idea - they don’t want governance like it’s outlined here. I could be wrong - and they may vote for it. But when we’re actually out there trying to make moves and compete…I worry it’s going to be really hard for whoever is trying to action real world things.
2 Likes
Why should market price ever be below treausry value? As it stands the concept is that Wmemo represents a proportional amount of the treasury. For that to work you need to be able to exchange the wmemo for that value.
Let go ahead and implement to get us moving forward. We can make tweaks as we move along. Im all for it.
1 Like
No. Now is not the time to make big changes and expansion. It will only create more confusion, suspicion and FUD. Now is the time to consolidate and protect the treasury and provide more clarification and education to all frogs in frog nation. The expansion plans can come later when wonderland is more stable.
This is a good start, but there are several aspects of it that I would suggest revisiting:
-
Phase 1 - The ‘redemption’ option should be reconsidered. That already exists in the option to sell. There is no strong argument why those not wishing to transition to Wonderland 2.0 should receive anything more than the wMEMO market price. Offering a time of snapshot redemption at backing will erode the Treasury and reduce the Treasury balance for stakers committing to the transition.
-
Phase 1 - The inclusion of wMEMO in the explanation of the token exchange is confusing. I get that 1 TIME = 1 MEMO = 1 gMEMO. The sentence: “At this point, those who wish to continue. . .” should remove the reference to wMEMO. wMEMO is fixed but MEMO within the wMEMO currently keeps rebasing. Also, if gMEMO’s supply is capped, then the rebasing within the wMEMO should stop when the exchange period begins.
-
Phase 1 - 3 months for an exchange period is a long time. Consider shortening it to 1 month.
-
Phase 2 - Recommend transitioning to only one token, not two. Staking in a MIM dividend pool makes perfect sense, and can be done without the introduction of a second token. The same is true for ‘compound’ staking pool, which ultimately just offers APY with a gMEMO backback mechanics using a proxy token. If 1 wSHARE = 1 MIM, then it’s not the staked token of gMEMO, right? So there’s no composability in a secondary market as half of an LP, correct? If it’s only used within the staking pool to facilitate an auto buyback, why even introduce a second token and not just use MIM?
-
Just call it the ‘Compound’ Staking Pool and include docs explaining the auto buyback mechanism. People are already confused enough about TIME vs. MEMO vs. wMEMO. Honestly, the explanation of wSHARE and why it’s a thing is a little too abstract and, well, smart for its own good. After folks learn it’s not 1 gMEMO = 1 wSHARE, they’re gonna be like, “huh?” One non-rebasing token with two staking pools that have different risk/yields. Simple.
-
I don’t see a problem with Treasury managed by a team under one Manager, as long as it’s the best in Defi. I get the idea of healthy competition between investment managers, but having a unified strategic vision under one giga-brain is better than a bunch running around doing their own thing in their own way. We vote every year, continue or select a new Treasury manager based on YoY performance. She/he has to have the right team (yield farming, deal flows, etc.)
-
In terms of management structure, keep it lean: 1) Operations Officer, 2) Treasury Manager, 3) Communications/Marketing Manager, 4) Strategy Office (Dani). DAO needs to weigh in on important management matters, but I believe it must empanel and trust the industry’s best team to be decisive, smart and nimble in its execution.
4 Likes
Overall, great work on putting together a thorough proposal and covering several the points around governance, tokenomics, rebasing vs. rev share, building out the team…etc
As a similar background to you (the professor and this group) with currently and running several large funds in the alternative Private investment space, there are several other factors that need to be considered around the speed of implementation/change, voting process, DAO vs. non-DAO related activities…etc
Some of these points are mentioned in the Professors proposal where as they also did not cover certain other factors that you did. I STRONGLY believe there is a comprehensive solutions to package up as a though out proposal by putting BOTH proposal together vs. voting on one.
My suggestion would be to have both teams/individuals that wrote up the proposal to work together over a group session and combine the proposal as ONE and put that up for vote with the help of a 1-2 other people to help corral (I’m 100% here to support and be one of those individuals) where we can debate some of the details out and set a direction to put in front of all the holders for a vote.
Regarding the Rage quit, I believe there should be a longer lock-up period vs. 48 hours to stabilize the price movement.
Regarding rebasing / APY - I agree that it should reduced, but gradually with some plan. The entire focus of a DOA token is to be a stored value that increases in purchasing power over time and outpaces inflation. One of the problems we need a DOA is to solve (especially for the retail investors) is to provide a consistent appreciating stored of value and return. There needs to be a good balance between Rev share and some sort of yield farming.
As more competition and new product arise, we require constant influx of of new capital and need to make it attractive otherwise we could lower our intrinsic value and long term holder being benefits significantly more is very important.
Background, dox and public notice on the all the executive roles is needed. I understand the strength of the DOA and that should be in place from a voting perspective, but everyone who wants to be part of this project should know who is running day to day which create accountability, credibility and ownership.
This is just a few comments/thoughts I’d like to share and being a significant holder of wMEMO/TIME, I fully support and willing provide a helping hand
3 Likes
I think this makes a lot of sense, 2 big things to decide and quite independent in a way.
Yes agree remove redemption from this proposal.
3 Likes
I like this more than Professor thingy this gave me more hopes obviously speaking about compounding and minimum staking periods is what was needed from the beginning.
Let’s vote this one
1 Like