If length of hold is used to determine eligibility, then it makes sense to me. This can easily be abused by arb traders who will just buy at cheap prices, rage quit at backing price for a profit… and even possibly buy back with part of the profit.
Let’s think this through once again.
My exact thought. RQ is okay if it’s for people that bought above backing price… otherwise, it’s just a free trade (profit) scheme.
Let’s do it right.
I have said it before. We need to rethink this RQ.
With 483 comments, my input probably isn’t needed and won’t be read.
That said, I’m a no. If we were to allow a rage quit option, it has to be limited to wallets holding wMemo pre-liquidation cascades, with the wMemo amount held at that point as a maximum. The whitelist should then include the max amount each address is whitelisted to ragequit for.
It shouldn’t be extremely hard to write a script to pull this information. See: Wrapped MEMO (wMEMO) Token Tracker | SnowTrace (I know there are other variables to take into account here, such as holdings on different networks at this point and holdings in time, memo and wMemo)
I can’t vote yes on any proposal that doesn’t have a code-side exclusion for anyone that bought after the crash.
Intrinsic value is useless if you can’t get underlying assets.
How would it go to 0 if yes passes??? it will pump to backing price, where anyone who wants out will be able to do so, and anyone left won’t sell later to crash the price after rq.
Did’nt say it would goto $0, just using same flippant predictions as 0xbisbis to prove a point.
Simple tweak to the proposal - only allow those who bought above ‘backing’ before #sifugate - and it makes more sense (i’d still probably vote no though).
The biggest issue we had is we didn’t have clear path and rules from the beginning - we’ve still got a chance to get back on path. This proposal isn’t helping anything, It’ll hit the treasury for no good reason other than pleasing than those stamping their feet shouting ‘its not fair!’
We need stability and a fair way forward (2.0/professor?) - giving money to those who bought UNDER backing isn’t that.
Vote no. I thought we voted on this before… answer was no then it’s no now. In crypto if you want out of a project you sell. if it’s down it’s a loss, If it’s up it’s gains. Plain and simple…
If the snapshot was prior to the Sifu issue then I would possible agree with this because that was at no fault of the project. Since that’s not the case. Profit for those with big pockets just because they have big pockets is wrong
thank you for all the hard work and lets go, lets get this done and out the way!
Sure mate I will vote yes 100 % to give the whales what they want after I vote NO unless if you can borrow me like £22500 yes? Because here we’re all nice I mean nice whales that no they didn’t wanted to Fuck us from behind and me very nice I will vote yes if you borrow me like£22500 and I will post my ETH address or you prefer Avax,Mim ,FTM,Sushi 
yes just let me know when you can deposit my loan and I assure you that you’ll have my vote guaranteed.
And one more thing please don’t forget to put here the phone number of your dealer because I think that thing you’ve smoked when you had this ideas is good shite mate and definitely I’m interested.
Please sign me up ok Homie 
Yes, go for rage quit. Please whitelist, very important bc whales dump
I’m in favor. Time to quit sitting in limbo. Making decisions is what gets us out of the sideways path we’ve been on. Let’s do this and then recognize that the rage quitters won’t be voting on the future path of wonderland unless they buy back in at a higher price above backing. Which I bet most won’t, they will move their capital elsewhere. Let’s move forward and make something of Wonderland!
A few of us put together a complete roadmap proposal involving several votes listed in linear order, but the core team won’t allow the mods here to progress it to RFC. Pretty dodgy behaviour IMO.
I don’t see how a larger treasury means larger yield. The opposite is most likely true
I’m totally in favor of RQ, as long as it follows what Dani said initially (treating each case individually based on time staking, purchase dates, amount lost, etc.). A one-size-fits-all approach is just a lazy way of ‘moving forward’, absolutely unfair to people who have been staking for a long time now, and in favor of the whales who have bought below the backing price. This is insane. I don’t know how come Daniele says something and the actual proposal looks completely different from what he said. It looks like he’s not really in charge here, and the team does whatever they want.
why are we even discussing this?
Pay the whales, fook that, let um sell, the price will never go below 1 MIM, that is a guarantee from the backers, Dani also said the intrinsic value will always be 1 MIM plus a premium…
Let the ones that want out, sell…not at backing price, but at market value
Agree, one size fits all is not fair. It should be baed on purchase price/date and time staked. Otherwise this will only benefit whales and those who bought very late when it dipped. Rage quit is just another way to attack the treasury. In its current form, I will be voting NO.
It would be better for wonderland if they just sell and lower the price to 17K, then wonderland could do a buy back at a huge discount. This increases the backing price for everybody, and improve the treasury/wmemo ratio.
If there were any viable plan for the future of Wonderland on the table, I’d be inclined to vote no. I’ve heard some interesting ideas for the future of Wonderland (specifically, the Professor’s proposal), but absolutely zero movement towards making that or really anything happen. I’m interested to see where this all goes, but nothing I’ve seen yet makes me believe there’s a real vision for the next step. So if this is the closest thing there is to a “what’s next”, then sure.
Voting yes to this is tantamount to giving away the project to whale speculators who have just arrived in the past few weeks. Absolutely stupid thing to do if you have held TIME for any length of … time. VOTE NO.