I think naming it rage quit is simple manipulation, in reality it is allowing exit at promised backing which attracted investors in the first place. Any holder that doesn’t see that should remove the green glasses clouding their vision. If people decide to “rage quit” after holding since before the drama and manipulation at promised backing it is the very least they should be allowed. It will still be at a loss, so the treasury and wonderland still gain. Not all frogs are blind believers or willing to check in every day on a promised protocol that was mismanaged and not honoured.
Take a second to think about what really happened that lead to all this, completely outside anyones expectation for what I researched before investing. The way it’s been handle though pushes me to vote YES the most. Painfully slow leadership in all aspects, still think Dani is brilliant but not in the same way I did before. Too many people don’t see RQ for what it is, honouring the basic protocol. I get the whale fud that’s going around , but it was the dev’s that left all vulnerable to that, not long term holders. so they can solve it without punishing the rest.
The total treasury doesn’t matter for your profit my dude.
Yield is unaffected here’s how.
For example:
Say we have 1 Billion Treasury with 1000 holders.
and a 1 Million a day profit.
This is equal to 1000 a day per holder
After Rage Quit 250 of the 1000 holders leave.
This would leave us with 750 Million Treasury and 750 Holders.
and a 750 thousand a day profit.
This is equal to 1000 a day per holder.
The same % as before per holder.
You will actually receive more revenue share after rage quit due to more High ROI opportunities.
It’s easier to gain more ROI on less total treasury.
Let me explain…
So imagine you have 2000 treasury and 20 Holders. each having a 100 share.
and there is a Yield farm that has a token limit, which allows us to put 500 worth in.
With a 2000 treasury that is only 25% of the treasury allowing us to only make the higher yield on 25% of our investment.
Imagine half rage quit, we are left with 1000 treasury and 10 holders, each still with 100 share.
Now we can put 50% of our treasury in making a higher yield from a bigger % of the treasury. Meaning Higher ROI and more revenue share for the holders.
NO DISADVANTAGE. Not to mention the bigger proportion of the 400 million BSGG tokens we will receive each if we kick the paper hands out.
This will also eliminate all the selling pressure from those who want to rage quit keeping the price from going up organically. This benefits everyone. Vote with your heads.
This proposal doesn’t have the numbers so I cannot determine whether or not I support it.
Currently, the backing per WMEMO, excluding the BSGG, is roughly 40k. Every other asset is extremely liquid and so there shouldn’t be any discount.
If the total backing being offered in the proposal ends up at 39k or above, I will support. If a lower number is offered, I will vote against. A larger discount than that is unacceptable, people taking the ragequit option are already giving up a substantial amount of value by foregoing BSGG and should not be expected to give up another 10%+.
I am currently one of the largest holders of WMEMO, through my FUSD project. We have also redistributed some WMEMO to Fortress holders, and they deserve to get the same $40k figure. I will encourage the Fortress community to vote against if the number ends up lower.
It’s actually higher… You get BSGG including in the assets + bsgg farming + it’s easier to deploy a smaller treasury (more yield on 300m-400m than on 600-700m, try deploying 700m lol)
Im gonna say NO because this project has BIG opportunity to stay for YEARS to come and will be super profitable, the only things that it needs are good management, communication and transparency
the revenue share, Doesn’t have compounding interest lol. It’s a fixed profit from treasury profit each day.
If your talking about the treasury compounding then it will still be the same as it’s percentage-based.
and since you can earn a higher ROI from less total treasury due to yield farm token limits, etc. You’ll actually earn more even if it did compound as it’s percentage-based.
It’s just maths bro, what are you confused about, don’t wanna argue just wanna clear this up. It’s genuinely beneficial to us long term holders.
Also with BSGG I’m talking about the 400 Million BSGG Staking Pool and the more people rage quit the higher the % to each holder. BSGG App hasn’t even launched yet.
I don’t really care if wMEMO goes to zero at this point if whales decides to leave. I’m already 90% down but put at risk what I was able to lose. I’m not crying, power money is crying to gets out with part of the cake. I want to stay, I don’t want anyone to be forced to stay but we have no benefit reducing treasury value. Burning is always an option either way.
What will make Wonderland a great project in the future are no whales pumping ad dumping, or a vote for burning tokens, it will be the value the project can provided to crypto, world and community. The short impact on price will be nothing if real frogs gets united as we did on previous vote and of course Daniele and Team provide a good outcome. Protect the treasury no matter what, at this point everyone is already REKT.
Leave at market price or stay and support the future. I’ll vote “NO”.
Revenue can be reinvested regardless of the amount, except with a smaller treasury the remaining holder will receive a slightly higher ROI due to more tokens being in higher yield farms.
Just don’t understand why you want to receive less money lol.
@BloodyStools yeah I was commenting on this Rage Quit option specifically, the professor’s one sounds much better and like an actual plan.
This is exactly what we need, some actual discussion and well-thought-out plans + execution.
Still, as all your/the professor’s points show, this is quite a complicated and delicate act. I cannot say whether it will work like that or not. What I can say is that it introduces risks that must be mitigated by a really well-thought-out plan. The DAO will decide (hopefully).
Personally, I would stand by the point to stop doing anything “artificial”, i.e. buybacks, calculated backing prices for exit options (even if calculated as properly as possible), etc., and just focus on putting the treasury to good use. - Everything else the market price will decide. Dani made (in retrospective) stupid promises with the backing price and even stupider decisions with not telling us Sifu’s identity but trying to make up for those promises on the back of the ones who actually want to stay, does NOT make much sense for me. As said, we do not “need” an artificial exit option, the market price exit is always there. - No one needs to feel entitled to anything here, also no backing price.
If the price plummets even further then so be it - we do not “need” to make the ones who want to exit anyway a little happier. At some point, especially if the treasury generates value, the market will realize that, and people and capital come back.
Therefore, keep building, keep investing - that should be the focus.
I think you mean the lack of communication and transparency. Does that not make you suspicious?
This proposal MUST exclude any investors who entered after 11 January 2022.
Seriously though! I love your comment. It’s so simple and easy to understand…and perhaps most importantly, it’s FAIR.
Why can’t we get something like this simple solution passed? I have the tokens to sponsor this, but it seems like the WL team pushes through whatever they want and your proposal won’t see the light of day or be considered for whatever reason.
But yes, you DO need to offer an exit strategy, as that was part of the contract. A court of law would undoubtedly see it that way too and also demand damages. As a compromise they might settle on return of the original investment.
This proposal MUST exclude any investors who entered after 11 January 2022.
I will be voting yes to rage quit. No advantage to arbs trying to reenter. Those that rage quit are the sellers
If the sellers then try to rebuy they are buying into high slippage because their will likely be no sell walls anywhere near the rage quit price = low liquidity near rage quit price, and high slippage to reenter meaning wmemo price go up.
They reduce the treasury yes but they also take away the sell wall meaning new buyers pay a premium to future sellers because sell price will be mich higher to fill.
Holders wont be competing with treasury because treasury doesnt sell below backing price so only holders can sell to new buyers, hence new buyers pay more for less.
Implement revenue share, which will create demand and this is how we get wmemo back to the 60k - 80k range and beyond.
