I love the structure of this proposal versus an entity or a singular person.Corporate DAO structure very interesting. To say the least. You have my vote. We will rain in all the nay sayers who left because we the community couldn’t get our shit together.
1 Like
Did you and a group of people propose this structure ?
Wonderland 2 is a shite proposal and Professor is worse.
Only want to kill the APY which is the right of early investors and deslist Time from good exchanges as Gate.io and Hotbit.
These proposals would make the game of those which voted YES we all know what was that for.
I’m on for audit bring professionals on board restructuring the management implementing burning mechanisms locked APY fighting for more listings on more exchanges .
Why shouldn’t we believe that Time wouldn’t be listed on Coinbase along Spell and Binance once with growth of token users, community few more rankings on CMC at least top 500.
We need adequate measures from people who had strong backbone in Crypto.Yes all professor talk sounds good but how applicable is.
These proposals have the main purpose to destroy Wonderland by messing with the APY with Time token and making sure that Time would be deslisted from these 2 main exchanges.
Any benefit for us the small frogs?
No but for them whales yes.
Did you fully read the wonderland 2.0?
2 Likes
Did you read both proposals fully?
Apy is a gimic tool to bring in new investors. We need to adjust from the ohm model because it has proven to shitty in a bear market and unsustainable unless we have multiple different revenue streams to burn tokens which would have to keep up with the pace of printing if not over take it. But still, set supplies work, and high apy will never work.
Ok then what would be the ROI like please explain .
I read both proposals
First of all, I would rather hire professor and go with his proposal. Please take note that Bastion clearly mentioned that there will be (many, many) times where conflict of interest will happen when they (Bastion) come across opportunities and dont know whether they will keep these opportunities to themselves, or bring them up to wonderland. These cannot happen my men. Whoever we appoint SHOULD NOT HESITATE at all to bring ALL OPPORTUNITIES to wonderland FIRST.
1 Like
I wish it was more detailed, however I really like the 4 Pilars in general, we need specify changes. I have a point regarding the voting. Most frogs were upset, that the whales had strong hand in the voting. It is really annoying, but don’t let us forget that we are talking about Millions of dollars they must have a vote. However, my suggestions as follow, we continue with the voting system BUT no one can vote in any proposal until he complete a period of time (ex 1 month). 2- The more the frog hold the token, the more power he gets in voting system ( 2 points per month). So the little frog with only (1 Time) can now have power of 3 Time.
3 Likes
Yes, this proposal is really a community effort. We originally drafted this with 10 authors and we’re working directly with a growing group of 40 in the process of refining and implementing feedback.
1 Like
if im not mistaken you’re referring to the text in the OP. Check the medium link, there we work out the details and cover both suggestions you mention!
it will be good if the profesor will simply join this discussion, and contribute to it with others.
2 Likes
I do agree for the removal.
I would like to see this proposal broken into three proposals: Governance, Token Changes, and Investment Strategy.
I’m broadly supportive of the governance recommendations. I’d like to understand in more detail the suggested token changes. And I’m against the investment strategy recommendations.
I think in order to be fully realized, Wonderland should be considered as part of an ecosystem; I think driving an investment strategy solely based on trading will fail to maximize our potential returns.
If the proposal must be voted on in it’s entirety, I will be against this proposal.
2 Likes
Understand your point. Proposals need a reasonable scope, and wonderland 2.0 has a huge scope. Given the current situation of Wonderland we think this is warranted. I’d like to illustrate why we believe changes in the areas you mention are intertwined.
The proposal is centered around transparency and accountability. These concepts are mainly dealt with in the governance section, but not only:
Treasury management model
The treasury management model ensures that there will not be a single point of failure. Say we were to ever encounter another sifu-gate, what would happen:
-1 treasury manager: all investment activities stop until a new treasurer is found. Trust is severely damaged.
-Multiple investment managers: The allocation of ‘the bad apple’ is revoked, the other investment managers continue. Trust is damaged, but not as bad, the system worked.
*note that investment managers will be primarily focussed on VC investments, until the community decides otherwise through the DAO. We do not propose to shift the investment strategy to trading.
Tokenomics
The main goal of the tokenomics redesign is to incentivise and reward long-term investment. A long-term mindset is essential for the success of the governance framework and the DAO at large. Were holders looking to profit of gMEMO within days or weeks, we’d be passing proposals with a similar horizon. Proposals aimed at pumping the short term price, through marketing, PR and non-sustainable strategies. By alligning the tokenomics and governance we aim to promote long-term, sustainable decision-making and strategies.
Last, we seek to set a healthy basis for future growth of Wonderland. We’ve included those things that we see as necessary for that. Each area that the proposal touches can, and should, be further developed through the governance framework.
Ultimately my view of Wonderland is that it is a technology and financial startup.
If we were to move forward with the treasury management proposal how does that provide room for the team to continue to invest in the abra+sushi+popsicle ecosystem strategy that I originally invested for?
No time to read? Here’s the full-length audio/video of the “Wonderland 2.0” Wonderland 2.0 Proposal [RFC] Full-Length Reading - Vote On The Future Of This Crypto Defi Project - YouTube Trying to provide easy access to information for anyone interested in the project. If you find this helpful, please share - thanks!
@LarryFisherman - if you find this helpful, please link at the top.
Thanks for this discussion and RFC!
2 Likes
Hi Guys, One question about Wonderland 2.0: if I stake my gMemo I receive wShare based on the proportion of my staked gMemo and the tresury’s value. My wShare will be bought back and converted back into gMemo on a linear basis so I will have e.g. 180 wShare at day 1, and 0 wShare at day 180 converted all back into gMemo. If I want to wait till day 180 to reduce the performance fee I will end up with 0 wShare because all was converted back into gMemo so I won’t have wShare to convert it into MIM to realize profit. Can you enlighten me, I must misunderstand something.
1 Like
So the investment strategy itself remains pretty much intact under WL2.0, the difference is in the execution.
There is currently not really a well defined strategy (at least not public). It seems to be VC-, Frognation ecosystem-, and other investments.
WL2.0 proposes to have the DAO vote on investing strategy proposals. These proposal can be submitted by the strategy officer or the community.
Investment managers act in-line with the most up-to-date investing strategy.
So for investing strategy, nothing changes, except that we want to make it transparent, community governed and actionable.