Great proposal, well thought out.
There are a few tweaks required IMO, some already pointed out by others.
I’m not sure if this is the way to go:
Why fragment the treasury? Would it not make more sense to appoint a team of seasoned managers and allow them to work out the best strategy for the treasury as a whole? I would expect better returns in that model.
‘a whole bunch’ is perhaps a bit of an exageration on my part.
But, we hope to achieve 3 things by fragmenting:
The largest drawback is that the maximum size of single investments is limited, given the huge size of our treasury we think that this is not too problematic.
What do you think?
Ok, if you are referring to a few, maybe 3 to max 5, managers, that makes more sense. To me it read as if there potentially would be scores of people all managing bits of the treasury.
I think the vetting process should be thorough, so we end up with seasoned, professional managers ideally with an existing track record.
Your points are valid, I’m happy as long as we put a cap on the max number of concurrent managers and we agree on some sort of formal vetting process.
Totally agreed. that Snapshot should be the starting point of a new Wonderland. That is the time when everything start to be nasty
Thanks for this very detailed response!
Some of these are implemented, some under revision, some rejected. Will post an overview of all submitted feedback later today!
The Snapshot should be the starting point of a new Wonderland. That is the time when everything start to be nasty. but also the second option “Before first liquidation event” serve because there was promised of the ex CFO to refund that guys, also in that post he said that Daniele agreed that.
Also Sifu post two days ago at his twitter that he already transferred that fund to Wonderland to accomplish this.
OK. Major issue with this proposal and I would like to make a suggestion. It is regarding the SNAPSHOT DATE.
“ Firstly, those who no longer wish to participate in the DAO may redeem any wMEMO purchased prior to Jan 28, 2022, 8:00PM UTC for treasury equivalent MIM at the backing price. Obviously, this will still be a loss for most people.”
wMemo hit an All Time Low on January 27th, so the proposal above seems suspicious to me.
I believe that the writers of this proposal could be trying to arbitrage the backing price.
I think we should just straight up remove redemption from this. Let’s just move forward.
From this proposal, I would drop the “rage quit” option - from every proposal. For the benefit of the project, I would like us to move on with what we have and see it secured. Anyone who wants to sell, can sell at whatever the market price is - which will reward longer term holders if we consider that when we start now it’s a new counter at day 1.
I would also like to see someone consider a flexible APY system, that’s based on actual performances. The treasury as it is should be left intact, profits should be allocated else where for redistributino and based on profit peformance the APY for rebases can be adjusted…so it’s always backed by a profit share. Something that’s inbetween what we have, and what this proposal proposes.
I want to lose this idea that you own a share of the whole treasury, and see that fund better protected as the “bottom line” as funds that can be reinvested for the project. Profits derived here on in are the entitlement of holders - the treasury as it is today, is a ring fenced investment fund.
The fallacy in this is that many frogs bought at lows to try and make back some of their investment because Danny promised us backing price would be honoured. While I get moving forward you want to see it differently it doesn’t change the fact danny sold it as “wmemo represents a portion of the treasury”. Those promises deserve to be honoured before moving onto whatever is next
Fantastic proposal, although I do agree with some of the other frogs that a rebrand would work in our favor. The Wonderland name seems a bit tainted, even though fundamentally nothing has really changed.
I’m not so sure we need them to compete with each other. I think the point of multiple managers is that they each have a different investment strategy to spread the risk.
If we tie their fees to the AUM, they will be incentivized to grow the treasury
I made a poll regarding this, it will be seen by us in Wonderland 2.0
Please look at my thread, the vote will be taken into consideration in wonderland 2.0
I used to work for another project by managing/moderating socials, hosting podcast, and implementing some of the proposed ideas below. My suggestion is as mentioned in the medium article to hire a community management team and have them give oversight to the suggested below. Due to the current situation of the project I believe if 2.0 is passed that the community manager team should meet with the adjacent teams and gather the information to distribute to the community on a bi weekly basis then eventually move to a quarterly release.
Additional duties as follows
I look forward to hearing others suggestions on this matter as well as any improvements or discrepancies. We are here because we believe in the future of this project and see a great opportunity to make the necessary changes to ensure the frog nation lives on.
As always stay cozy frens.
With much love,
HuntedProfit
I’m going to play Devil’s advocate here and argue that Rage Quit has already been voted against in the initial vote. The fault lies with the author of the initial proposal and vote structure. It was the author’s gamble to rush and ram it through and they lost that bet. It was a 2 pronged vote question with no option to separate. I would argue that the community voted 6 to 1 to BOTH Save Wonderland AND Keep the Treasury intact.
This article is too heavy. It summarises with few details. ‘The professor’ is clear and gives direction that any small brain frog (including me) can understand. You need to find a PR/marketing team that understands your market and can set a tone and choose language that anyone can understand. Your not there yet but The professor nails it! I still want to know who The Professor is before they manage our money though. More transparency is needed after what we have gone through.
#frognation
I agree with this 100%. The scary cat, frogs and old website does not really sound trust worthy to attract new people, especially with a stain on the project. We need a state of the art website with all transparent live metrics, latest UX and UI. Maybe an app as well. Definitely need a name change.
I prefer the Professor and Bastion proposals
Professor’s proposal is better wen RFC