I dont agree almost, all holders are red at the moment but dont want to sell. Why reward the paperhands? DCA or get out of here by selling and taking a loss.
8 Likes
If you quit your share, if you don’t quit you still hold the same share as before (actually more as BSGG is not included)
3 Likes
The whales left on advanced knowledge of sifu. They knew a month ahead about sifu if you follow the aftermath. The economic attack targeting dani and sifu liquidation level led to cascading liquidations.
The vultures came when dani announced a vote to end the project. It failed and those who entered to arb liquidation were stuck. Rage quit is a quick out, they rather free their money up for now opportunities vs waiting for the price to move up to a profitable level to exit.
Their isnt enough liquidity at their sell level to all exit so rage quit is their out.
17 Likes
Sounds fair. A fair exit at backing and holders benefit from the 5-10% slippage.
Rage quit in reality you dont lose, you dont gain. But the rage quitters exit with treasury money as their exit liquidity. Is it a win or loss no - its neutral for holders. But the moral loss is those that came to liquidate the treasury get a now exit.
6 Likes
I have a question to all who are worried about whales? Do you not realize that whales are the ones keeping the price afloat? Think about it this way.
There is a token you hold that is supposed to be redeemable for one lambo. The price crashes and you go to the guy who sold you the token. The guy selling the token says, oh well you can’t actually redeem the token for the lambo. You can only get the revenue from renting out the lambo. You get mad, what you were promised was one lambo, not the revenue from the lambo. You and everyone else who sell the token sell at a loss and end up with way less.
If the price falls can fall below the price of a Lambo what is the point of the token? The only reason the token has value is the expected promise that you can redeem it for an actual lambo. Without that guarantee, the token is worthless and will be sold into oblivion.
2 Likes
You gain because the token you hold goes up in value. You lose if it doesn’t pass because your token is now worthless without the promise of at least backing value.
2 Likes
NO to creating a ragequit option.
8 Likes
oh yeah, now i can see clearly.
this meme changed my life and i will be voting yes now.
it’s a miracle.
TLDR - I support Rage Quit, but NOT this version of it, as it is prone to heavy abuse! If you are a long term holder, this only hurts you significantly.
*
I wish there were better protections against abuse. Such as, anyone who purchased after Sifu Gate is eligible only for their money back rather than making a profit due to backing price, which only comes from the pockets of the earliest investors. After all, where do those who purchased low post-SifuGate get the EXTRA money in profits to sell at backing? That comes from early investors who paid a premium for this token. With this, early investors are lining the pockets of opportunists and whales.
A rage quit option at backing price for those who purchased prior to Sifu Gate makes sense, as the project took some unexpected turns to say the least. These proposed options just don’t make logical or financial sense and only hurt those who actually support the protocol and helps those who were here to hurt it and make a quick buck.
Lastly, what is stopping a whale from seeing this proposal, buying a boat load of tokens, & using those tokens to ensure this current revision of the rage quit proposal passes so they can make easy money? Literally anyone who purchases wMemo now will make a profit, at long-term frog’s expense 
This “governance” is a joke. The wonderland team seems to be pushing through whatever they think is best. We have proposals and options that have received support, but somehow, this is our option?
16 Likes
The DAO can vote to reinstall backing, that isnt a Dani decision. If we want backing price we just propose it, make our case and move forward.
One has nothing to do with the other on rage quit defining backing price in the future.
1 Like
yep, f whales and suits.
wait and recoup over time like all of us or sell at loss, treasury will absorb wmemo at a cheap price and burn it down the road, pumping holders’ bags.
9 Likes
I dont think anyone is worried about whales right now. The whales left long ago. Their are not whales left, these are vultures, different species
3 Likes
I’ll be voting no for this. There is no proportional return for long-term stakers who weren’t degens, who did DCA. A responsible owner who wants out has the option to exit now. What happened to length of hold, and to things Dani mentioned?
8 Likes
So if this passes what stops them from pulling out with a higher price then now and buying back in at a lower price from all the sells?
4 Likes
we must have gone to a different business schools.
whales are arbing and raiding treasury at long term holders expense. whales can dump the price by selling at this time. treasury will buy as it owns liquidity. down the road new rfc to burn wmemo will more than make up the temporary value drop.
i’m so down at his stage i simply don’t care about further drops.
hero or zero.
simple as that.
the sooner we pull this band-aid off the sooner we heal.
put in a new mgmt, start farming the treasury and share rev with hodlers.
no refunds bro…
11 Likes
nothing at all, they need exit liquidity. they can only engineer it via rfc of this or similar nature.
vote NO and they can gtfo with their tails between their legs
6 Likes
Not against a ragequit for long term holders, am against a ragequit for “whales” that purchased recently and looking to profit from a higher buyback price - they should be excluded from the buyback - others above have already suggested how this could be done, eg snapshot of wallets before a certain agreed date.
12 Likes
based
vultures need to be fed buckshots as far as i’m concerned loool
6 Likes