We the little investors made Wonderland not the whales this is all whales game.
Profit shares %of Wmemo now the new token ok?
For who’s the most beneficial ?
Those 7.8%that voted yes because they’ll have a bigger portion always . LoL 
we the other who voted No we’re asked to vote yes to getting pennies.
Holding is profit, TRADING is profit , APY is profit but for those projects who became the top crypto projects.
Pancake Swap,
Crypto.com and CRO and I can make you a longer list.
In Crypto who dumps another buys when another sells taking its profits .Is the market the trade etc.
The APY cannot be infinite but neither stopping it suddenly and leave us all rinsed without taking our game. I don’t agree with this proposal and I don’t really see any benefit for little investors.
Larry I’m not very smart apologies mate ok show me this
I got 1800 left from 16500 ok
Fine let’s say you won this
Now according with curve model or whatever you propose mate now
I’m holding what I got left you’ll exchange for me into a different token whatever.
Let’s calculate
My 1800 holding it for 12 months +1 =what’s my ROI after according to your thingy graphic
Can you give me like a straight answer?
I know for a fact that in Wonderland 1 if you want to say so would be roughly 2000 Time now how much this will worth to the end this is the risk I took however give me like a rough estimate can you?
Hey, so lets seperate two things.
- rebasing
The current APY on $time is 80000%, so if you have 1 $time today, you will have 800 $time in a year.
The current APY on $wmemo is 0%, so if you have 1 $wmemo, you will have 1 $wmemo in a year.
How can this be? Because $time rebases, but $wmemo doesn’t rebase. The difference:
$time supply today: 2M
$time supply in a year: 1600M (800 x 2M)
$time price today: 303
$time price in a year: 0.38
$time market cap today: 615M (2M x 303)
$time market cap in a year: 615M (1600M x 0.38)
$wmemo supply today: 22K
$wmemo supply in a year: 22K
$wmemo price today: 27300
$wmemo price in a year: 27300
$wmemo market cap today: 615M (22K x 27300)
$wmemo market cap in a year: 615M (22K x 27300)
So yes, your time will increase 800x in a year, but it’s price will decrease 800x, so you are left with the same value. Because the marketcap of $time and $wmemo will not change.
And that is what we want to change with WL2.0.
- Market cap & treasury
The market cap of $time and $wmemo should be around the value of the treasury. Right now the only way to increase the treasury is to generate profits. There is no treasury manager, so we’re not making profits.
What we want to do is get a few investment managers, which will use the treasury to:
- invest early in crypto projects (like a VC firm)
- make profitable trades
- yield farm
I do not know what the market will do and investing always has risks, so i cannot promise you how much profits they can make. But a fair guess would be 20-40% APY.
Let’s say the treasury increases by 30%, then the market cap will also increase by 30%, so we get:
$time market cap today: 615M
$time market cap in a year: 800M (615M + 30%)
$time supply today: 2M
$time supply in a year: 1600M
$time price today: 303
$time price in a year: 0.50 (0.38 + 30%)
$wmemo market cap today: 615M
$wmemo market cap in a year: 800M (615M + 30%)
$wmemo supply today: 22K
$wmemo supply in a year: 22K
$wmemo price today: 27300
$wmemo price in a year: 35490 (27300 + 30%)
As you can see from both examples, the apy of $time doesnt really make a difference. To make it a little more clear, lets take $time from the last example and pretend there would be no rebasing:
$time market cap today: 615M
$time market cap in a year: 800M (615M + 30%)
$time supply today: 2M
$time supply in a year: 2M
$time price today: 303
$time price in a year: 393 (303 + 30%)
In this example we see that the price of $time in a year is much higher then in the previous example (800x higher), but the supply is much lower (800x lower). So it’s the market cap that really matters for us as investors. And the only way to increase market cap is to make good investments with the treasury. This is what WL2.0 is about.
Does this clarify?
Either way I’m clarified therefore I’m back on dollar to dollar trade with few hundred left on my wallets trying to scrap as many pennies I can.With other words this investment is kinda fuckt either way as the Time market cap must increase somewhere around 10-20X which is less likely for Time to end worth like 30 bucks in a year or Wmemo to get to 1 million USD in order to get profit.
The buy backs and backing price is what they fucked things up kinda irremediably at this point.
How do you consider in future to reduce selling pressure.
I’m still in doubts about Wonderland 2 (yet) I mean I admit that everything you’ve stipulated is correct on the surface.
As a trader and you know is always 2/1 chances to land on a good trade of 10X if you really feel the market and understand the utility of the project however I believe that we need a safety net I understand a new token is needed.
Have you took in consideration a new type of token (you might want to see one of my past proposals)
I always liked deflationary coins build on a scarcity model. Look at the way that Bitcoin is made I know you might laugh but look at the Coins of other Defi that actually hit the top floor as YFI and Maker.
What we need is an unique token build up on a scarcity model with a quite very small supply that staked and unstake earlier should be burnt and redeemed only against min a token whose supply might decrease but never increase.
As well a token that’s divisible instead of cumulative.
Example
1 WTM shares , Memo, Time or whatever you want to name it will be divided into 1000 initial units backed by 1 min therefore by protocol our new coin cannot be under 1000 USD .It will act accordingly as a stable coin made by protocol.
Now the question is how our new coin mean yours would aquire value?
Once Market cap grows then our new coin acquires more value ok? Therefore would be divisible by the acquired units if it will grow to 1500 then the new coin would be divided by 1500 units instead of 1000 .
Idea is that this would be a typical share crypto coin which supply would only decrease and never can be bought back literally under the last price that was previously sold because with every sale the supply will decrease.
Is not guaranteed that the price will suddenly grow but this would keep more tight the sale pressure.
I don’t know yet if according to your calculations indeed the price of Time would be 30 cents probably not if more investors will step in and the market cap would be around the treasury or even more if the projects survives and it would depend only by our consensus.
Still I believe that loads of points of Wonderland 2 must be carefully revised and I suggest testing bits before any overall implementation in order to avoid bugs in strategy that can be fatal.
I still believe that is all too sudden change and I think you need to ensure a plan B as well.
Kind regards
$time market cap today: 615M (2M x 303)
$time market cap in a year: 615M (1600M x 0.38)
What makes you so sure that will be the same market cap next year is everything so relative I mean homie even Nostradamus couldn’t predict this.
What I’m actually worried is that there’s no implementation of no Burning mechanism no Node mechanisms no protocol is simply your idea of DAO based on trade which I think you have to be better than any AI to be so sure about that.
Now I don’t really agree that the market cap will stay the same it might grow converging the dilution or might tank see this is the risk 2/1 same as your plan only I see more quicker trying to improve what you got and achieved instead of scrapping everything and start from scratch.
Still 2/1 in your case so I don’t think would make any difference.
The only thing will move this forward make few adjustments , locking stakes,burning mechanism no buy backs no backing price and grew the market cap making attractive for more investors and pretty much that’s it.
Your plan wouldn’t recover our loses neither .So still I don’t think will work. The biggest mistake that you guys doing is by redeem Wonderland as faulty and bringing up a new Magic Wonderland of course after you smashed the reputation of Wonderland well do you believe that smart traders would buy this?
What do you think
You guys never should touch these waters , burning mechanisms and control of supply by reducing APY gradually this is what this project needed still needs.
I’ll try to go point by point.
Hard floor (stable coin)
I agree with the reasons you name to implement this, however I think this is difficult to do. Because you’d essentially be doing what many algo stable projects are trying. They are using very experimental methods that carry a high degree of risk. While our goal is to maximise returns and minimise risk.
Size/scope WL2.0
It is far from ideal to implement a proposal that is so big as WL2.0. In a ‘normal’ situation I would be against that. In the current situation we think that it’s important to improve the governance process. But that also includes adopting a system where voters are incentivized to make long term decisions (tokenomics). And for the governance to work properly, we need the team to be accountable (team structure) and the community to have significant influence (dao, pond protectors). This is why we felt that such a big proposal is a good idea in this exceptional situation.
Future market cap
You’re right i cant predict the future market cap. In the example i gave i assumed that nothing else would change. That’s not realistic of course. As you say, I also expect that the market cap will be equal or above the treasury.
Reputation
Reputation is severely damaged. We think the best way to restore that is by first providing a sustainable way to move forward (phase 2). Once we’re internally on track we can start PR/marketing to repair our reputation externally.
No we got the reputation back I mean the No vote was epic all crypto world wrote about us.
We survived but yes we need to improve the reputation which I would consider the main bit before everything as we need more investors therefore we need to make sure that we don’t became a security neither.
Sec is eyeing our treasury is big and juicy for those fuckers .
You guys need to implement as well straregies to keep SEC away as well.
I see it probably in a year or two things won’t go as quickly as you’ll expect
First of all, I dont see a reason to change to a new token. Our current rebasing works and I am getting more and more memo token everyday. We just need to go back to memo since capital gain tax no longer an issue as long as you did not sell your memo.
Second of all, I think there’s to many people you are expecting to be involved in the management. You are talking about 5 officers and what 7? pond protectors? and many2 treasury managers? Will this work? How fast can we execute anything with these many people? And how do we elect these people? I dont even know you larry. Please elaborate.
Personally I believe we just need to focus on the plans that are already laid out and execute those things first, without having to think about changing anything yet. Here are the things that are planned and not yet implemented.
- Liquid staking - do this first
- BSGG “mining” - do this first
- Appoint new treasure manager - do this first
- Further yield farming - do this first
I dont think we need to care about what fudders out there say anymore. “They do they, we do we”. My fear about this wonderland 2.0 is, by the time we finish these 20+ discussions, votings, whatever2, IT IS ALREADY NEXT YEAR, and we still rebasing, no liquid staking, no bsgg mining (revenue share) and no plan to go get a new alpha project.
You know what I’m sayin’
I agree with the general spirit of your comment. We should minimise sacrificing execution power/speed. However, we must balance these to some extend with security and accountability.
As for rebasing, it works to get more Time, however it doesn’t add value to your position. In rebase-adjusted terms (wmemo) your capital stays exactly the same. The only purpose of rebasing was providing a discount to those whon bond assets to the treasury. This discount is paid for by holders, so collectively we do not benefit from rebasing. It’s a zero-sum game after all.
As for size of the management team and repurcussions on execution speed. We have done our best to seperate responsibilities between the managers, i.e. they can execute independently within their domain. If you think they are too intertwined, or unnecessary responsibilities have been included, please let us know which!
The pond protectors will hamper execution speed to some extend, this where the trade-off between speed and security/accountability comes in. If you believe that we are too much on the side of security/accountability and sacrifice too much on the side of speed, let’s have t.he discussion on specifics. Which of the responsibilities of the Pond Protectors would you like to see altered or removed?
For the treasury management, Investment Managers would be compensated purely on the basis of their performance, i.e. x% of net profits they generate for us. They may execute autonomous, except for cases where they operate in high-risk areas. Notably in pre-sales, where the risk that an Investment Manager may be bribed is significant.
High level, accountability in the decentralised world is a challenge. In the conventional world we would rely on contracts and regulators, which can guarantee accountability through legal means. Since we are much more limited in those regards, we propose the system as laid out.
Agree on Liquid staking, the other three points are covered under the proposal imo.
Last, not all that is contained in the proposal can be implemented at the flick of a switch. Some areas will need to be further specified and discussed, as you rightfully say. However, we view the proposal as providing a foundation on which we can iterate. We believe it’s better to move to a solid foundation and improve on that along the way, rather then crystalizing everything upfront.