Um, ser. You’re the one making the assumption that the price of wMEMO will stay stable. I’m sorry, but do you have a crystal ball, Ser?
And again…it has nothing to do with the the exit option. My calculations show that the equity value of those holding wMEMO will remain unchanged. @sky please point to where my math is flawed?
You are literally stating the obvious as I showed with my pizza example. Now do the calculations on how much Tom is in a deficit if we allow whales to have the rage quit option. If you want to leave, just sell, who is stopping you
Tom is not impacted by the exit option. Period. That’s the calculation I showed.
Nothing is stopping Tom from buying when the price of wMEMO is half the backing price and DCA. He can do it with the rage option or without the rage option.
Geezus… What are you talking about @Kingmaker9999
First, you are assuming that investors will leave without a rage quit option. They could just very well stay and just keep voting in favor of proposals that only favor short-term profit and driving down the token price everytime it rises.
Secondly, the reason Tom profits in the second option is because he bought wMemo at a lower price. This has absolutely nothing to do with giving people an exit option or not. In fact giving people a rage-quit option will most likely cause the undervalued token price to go back to backing also benefiting Tom if he bought at the current less-than-backing prices.
Your spreadsheet proves that DCA can be a good strategy, and that the rage quit option will not change Tom’s share of the treasury.
Thank you, ser! Arbitrage will bring the market price back up to near backing price.
And nothing is stopping Tom from DCA right now.
I have one question. In the medium article, it says:
Why Non-DAO supply? That’s the same as saying that millions of the buybacks that we did are worth 0. The investment the treasury did with buybacks should be taken into consideration to calculate the WMEMO backed price. Otherwise, the investment was not worth it.
The documents of the protocol declares:
“For LP Mints such as TIME-AVAX Minting, the RBacking Per TIME is calculated differently because the protocol needs to mark down its value. Why? The LP token pair consists of TIME, and these LP tokens will back each TIME in circulation - there is a cyclical dependency. To safely guarantee all circulating TIME are backed, the protocol marks down the value of these LP tokens.” Only the LPs are marked down, but the DAO will not have LP’s since that day. They should be taken into account.
I agree with the professor, but we have to make some numbers. The idea of: “Investors who invested in Wonderland were told by the Wonderland team that the backing price would always be defended until the DAO decided in the future that this should no longer be the way forward.”
The promise of backing price doesn’t mean we automatically let anyone exchange the treasury for the cost of Wmemo. Ohm is doing inverse bonding which is intelligent because you can control the number of inverse bonding you provide while keeping the market open. Also, we are assuming people will stop at the backed price. The day of the rage quit. What happens if the price is 50,000 and people want to continue. We will have a treasury much lower treasury and have to start all over again.
We have to be more specific about the technical standards of the 48-hour window of the rage quit. How will the oracle of the back price work? Will it be inverse bonding or AN LP provided by treasury? Example: Holder X exchanges WMEMO for MIM. Then, person Y wants to do the same, but the backing price is different from the Holder X received since treasury is now lower and the oracle price of WMEMO is higher. What stops people from providing in SUSHI and JOE and arbitrage the 48-hour window? It’s permissionless, and anyone could provide liquidity; there is no such thing as “close the LP.” Wonderland was the most distributed token amongst its holders. Last month, the top holder had 0.5% of the total supply of WMEMO; now, it has 1.7%. We are an “experimental token”, but not more experiments in plan execution. If we don’t execute the 48 windows correctly, the protocol could be over.
The lower DCA option comes from exactly the fact that whales are gonna exit once they find out they cant arbitrage the treasury giving Tom the opportunity to buy at a lower price. Also I am not afraid of them being able to push short term votes once we get Harry on board,
He is, by giving whales the exit option, he is giving up money that HE put in when he bought wMemo at a price higher than the backing price. Do you think money comes from nowhere? Like literally. Giving whales the exit option is giving whales money that other people contributed with to the treasury. You are only calculating Tom’s dividends. Not his share value + dividend. That is where your math is flawed. Once you get out of your delusion you will also realize this unless you have ulterior motives with this selective choice of so called “math”.
That just means the wMEMO bought back are not included in the calculation of backing. By taking it out of circulation they essentially boosted your share of the DAO. If they included that, everyone would be diluted and the backing price would plummet. Backing = Treasury / Outstanding wMEMO. Is that what you really want?
Sifu and Dani personally guaranteed the backing price. That’s why this is a thing. I’ve never been a fan of buybacks, but we are in this situation now.
I’m actually considering other options than simply the treasury giving people assets at backing price.
I don’t think we need to be specific here. That is something we would let the devs handle. Yes anyone can create LP, but it won’t be nearly as deep and cause all kinds of issues for them. Probably wouldn’t be worth it.
You can propose that. It may work better.
LMAO 
That’s hilarious. Do you know how to use quotations?
And how your argument has just gone further down the gutter as your “math” and reasoning has been called out.
WHALES! They’re taking MY money. They’re not…as “math” has shown.
Appreciate the explanation. Sounds good. Ready to rebuild this thing!
I like the revenue share option or a profit share option.
What I think most of the frogs are missing is that there need to be an UTILITY to the token. Getting some yield on your token is a great utility that adds value to the token price.
This pushes us to the next logical step: How do we implement it?
I see a transition to the new token as a very logical solution.
The calculation of the backing price isn’t just any arbitrary calculation. The documents of the treasury says the following:
They said that in relation to liquidations:
“No, I’m going to use treasury funds to buy back below backing as promised and divert these rebought tokens to victims who lost from the cascade at a very low price”
"I’m saying that I intend to make whole those who were liquidated under Dani and I, well under backing price, during these black swan events. If the DAO votes against doing this using tokens acquired via buybacks, we will do it using our own funds. This is a one time thing.
Why we tell leverage people “you know the risks” and people from the rage quit “yes”. However, I do agree we have to offer a solution, but it’s not something we promised. This is the first time we will vote on it. There was no promise to give the treasury to token holders when the backing price is below it.
Making a safelist(whitelist) contract is not hard. We can maintain the markets open. Give the people who want a Rage Quit a 3 day window to enlist themselves in the safelist, and after the team can get the funds from the treasury, establish a date, and the people from the safelist get their share. In that way, there is much more secure, no-arbitrage because it’s a one-time thing, and we can maintain markets open
All TIME/MEMO/wMEMO held by the Treasury is not included in the backing price. This has always been the case. You can do a rough calculation yourself and you’ll see if they include all those tokens, the backing price on the dashboard would be nowhere near where it is now
Yes, but the entire time Sifu and Dani said they would continue buy backs under backing.
That’s exactly what I’am saying. Making the claim that we have to do the rage quit only because they announce they will buy when the price is below is no different from saying we should pay all liquidations if they happened below price. The two claims are equally valid.
And Sifu make a mistake because if treasury is used to do buybacks you have less treasury and the backed price is reduced. Discord
And by the way, taking every discord message as 100% "we have to because they said so, its not just how DAOs work. Saying “have the opportunity to test the buyback promise at Wonderland” doesn’t mean we are forced to stop all our liquidity, in all our open market so that people can redeem a part of the treasury. Why we did all those buybacks if all those millions are now worthless? Almost 15 million since he wrote that message. Probably because sifu never thought that the treasury he and the team built for months was going to be distributed like this.If we allow people to do it, its because we want to give an exit option to some holders not because we are force to do it to keep a promise.
I really don’t understand what your argument is anymore.
Are you simply against the exit option? You’re kind of all over the place.
All you have shown is that dividends won’t change which is not a surprise. So you’re either delusional or you know exactly what you are doing
You’re back and making less sense than ever. How am I delusional when I have math to back it up?
Again, you are not responding to anything. You have shown that dividends won’t change which is not a surprise. Tom’s gains nothing from letting rage quit happen is the bottom line. You won’t get your arbitrage so quit trying
Actually nothing changes for Tom. We responded to your nonsense about DCA which already makes huge assumptions about price impact.
Tom could easily DCA here and make a nice gain if there is a exit option at backing. He would have made close to 40% gain already in fact if he bought near the bottom a few days ago.
So what else do I need to respond to?
