Most anti-crypto proposal I’ve seen/most susceptible to future manipulation: Regarding the voting, you’ll need everyone KYC’d (doxxed) in the community in order to avoid people using bots to have thousands of addresses with small amounts of TIME from voting for whatever they want - If you KYC people/dox them, then you don’t need to worry. Keeping people silent and not letting them speak openly in a community, well, isn’t a community anymore - it only allows for sycophants and creates fear in the community (those left won’t speak openly in fear of being banned).
I also agree!!! sInce we are diflationary why disable the APY? i thought it was sustainable and its also a great marketing tool that gets more people into wonderland!
This won’t make any difference I will vote NO because I don’t see the necessity to change towards another token instead doing something easier .
Implementation of a burning mechanisms reduccing supply and keep APY and rebases sustainable.
Moving to a professional team.
Give choice of Profit share or Rebates .
I don’t see why to scrap Time when is got such good listings .
1 Like
Agree that we shouldn’t leave loose ends in general, are there specific things you’re referring to?
Is there any clarification on rage quit option ? When is this happening ?
We don’t sell at current price because the price tanked because we had a prolific serial scammer running the project . Price tanked on that news, news that was kept from investors from the start or from when dani found out , which I believe he knew from the get go. Absolutely should have the option to exit at fair value , which considering where most of us bought in , backing is still below fair value. Regardless those of us who have no faith or want no part of this anymore should be given the option to be bought out at backing !
Please see our medium post for updated information on ragequit.
I’m not planning on rage quitting but shouldn’t that either be posted directly or stickied somewhere here?
No rage quit option described in this proposal, this proposal has been updated to saying they don’t know what to do… about helping people get out who don’t want to be here (great… whoever wrote this is not very competent if they can’t think of any solution to letting people out fairly). It also seems to focus on silencing anyone who disagrees with Wonderland and getting a quadratic voting scheme going which will allow for bots with very little TIME to take over votes. If it is between this and the professor’s proposal, absolutely going with the professor who has a rage quit option and seems to still appreciate not living in a vacuum of sycophants. Preference is still a rage quit option before any further proposals, but if between this proposal and The Professor’s proposal - will vote for The Professor. A lot of people aren’t going to vote this proposal simply because there is no rage quit - we’ll go with a rage quit option of some sort.
Nah fam. One thing is thinking of a solution, another is being overloaded with different kinds of decision making moving forward. It is better to just leave the rage quit option out of the proposal and have that discussion somewhere else since it is really important. What Larry is saying is that the rage quit option should be considered separately and will be used in the Wonderland 2.0 proposal. If @ LarryFisherman incorporates it into his proposal, it could swing the votes solely by who is for/against rage quit instead of 95% of the other good stuff that is included in Wonderland 2.0.
3 Likes
In a word… Turmoil
While none of us are thrilled with the current state of Wonderland there is a considerable portion of our community that would prefer to move on. While many of us are choosing to stay, those that would prefer to move on are caught in a sort of Limbo. The idea was put forth at some point to buy them out at backing, not market, but the details of that haven’t been solidified that I’m aware. I’m also thinking there are those that might wind up sticking it out if it’s decided that isn’t going to happen rather than sell at market price. Either way, this is a sticking point is going to keep coming up and we need that put to rest so all that remain can focus on moving forward. Until that happens I believe the whole community will be stuck in Limbo.
Also, wasn’t there some talk about a bunch of tokens to be airdropped for some betting platform Wonderland invested in? Whatever happened to that?
As for redeeming wmemo for backing, we have included in our proposal that this question must be decided at the latest 2 weeks after our proposal.
We propose to airdrop all non-vesting bsgg tokens.
For details on both of these you can refer to the medium linked in the OP.
how soon this proposal can be voted on
In any well run organization there is accountability of responsible persons / officials. This is achieved by;
- Skin in the game to incentivize positive behavior
- Negative consequences for poor performers / bad actors
Any new proposal must address these points.
1 Like
prefer Professor’s proposal more than 2.0
Can you elaborate on what you prefer? What would you like to see Wonderland 2.0 incorporate / change?
Very good point. We had extensively discussed this when writing the proposal, but referred to it vaguely in the text.
Medium has been updated to include:
50% of officer compensation is vested for a year. DAO/Pond Protectors may freeze these funds when officers act against the DAO’s interest.
a lot of words… who do you propose for managers?
1 Like
Very important point that you bring up here. It was brought to our attention a few days ago and we’ve been looking into this.
As you rightly mention quadratic voting is very prone to manipulation. We’ve considered some modifications and alternatives. We’re happy to have found an abuse-proof solution. The medium is updated to reflect this, would be happy for you to validate our solution!
1 Like
You’re right it’s quite a lot, we feel that Wonderland needs a solid basis to move forward. The election process can start as soon as this proposal passes.
We are not proposing anyone specific for the team, including ourselves, as this would pose a conflict of interest.
1 Like