Exactly this. This is why I want to include recent sellers too.
3 Likes
Couldnāt you take the MIM you got and buy back in right now then? You would lose some if you sold at a lower price, but then this is pretty much an expected thing - you sell and it goes up you lose out, you sell and it goes down more you ended up saving money - thereās no āoops, I wish I hadnāt done that, I deserve a refundā in crypto.
If you buy back in right now and it gets approved to trade each wmemo for 40-50k MIM youād at least make back some money right? Unless you want to not take on the risk of wmemo going down from here, keep your money safe, but still get a return?
Why werenāt we presented with the option to turn the token in at treasury value (remove trading pairs against arbi) during the SIFU vote were it was clearly communicated that all price control was disabled?
If a restart is even an option, the only way forward is the most trusthworthy & honorable.
Use the bsgg snap.
Well, I can tell you this - keep muddying the waters with talk of snapshots and āletās do thisā āno letās do thatā āno, lets include this group, but not that groupā āno, include that group, not this groupā etc, and watch the price tank more.
Make things clear, take away uncertainly, keep it simple - something that can be done without people being told āwait, real soon, weāll figure it all outā for weeks - something like 'hereās a contract, you turn in 1 wmemo you get 50k MIM, and watch the price rocket up to near that amount.
IF they really are paying back ONLY to current wmemo holders, iām definitely buying, but that is not certain. if i buy in right now, iām gambling between payback vs. continuing with different fund manager. and i certainly want payback instead. iām not buying anymore if the latter will take place. is this reasonable?
So itās exactly what I said then? You donāt want to have your money at risk, you sold to protect what you have, but if price goes up you want a return from that - just without risking losing it by buying back in right now. Problem is that is crypto - you donāt get gains if you donāt risk something. It isnāt a simple matter of āletās vote that if it goes up I get some, but if it goes down Iāve luckily sold and am in stablesā. Someone else out there IS putting their money at risk by providing the liquidity (eg buying right now) for people who want to sell, and shouldnāt they deserve a return for taking on that risk?
2 Likes
I like and agree with this proposal.
If you really want to do this based on merit, payback everyone STILL IN the project first, then you can consider payback for people who panic sold. I havenāt moved a penny of my initial investment. People who have stuck through for the entirety should be prioritized over those that sold.
1 Like
imo, at this point, its not about rewarding holders who still believe in this project even after this news, but being responsible, owning up to their mistakes and fixing the damages they have done by reimbursing ALL those who are affected. you, me, and everyone else involved.
1 Like
i get where youāre coming from, but rewarding those who stuck out and reimbursing those who are affected are two different things. i think the treasury should still be distributed evenly even to those who sold after todayās news. reward for folks who stuck out should be unrelated to treasury and come out of the teamās personal pockets.
It needs trust, but it will never get it without structure between the devs and the community. I posted in general ,<Structure + Communication>, how to set it up starting today and I would start now if everyone agreed. Its not ok to have the gap in understanding and direction this wide without providing the correct pathways between devs and community to really solve the concerns and provide assurance to the direction with true education on how the money is being utilized and why it works.
Agree,
wMemo represent a share of the treasury, if someone sold it he sold that share too. He cashed outā¦ So if he want a compensation, he should buy back since the price is much lower now.
2 Likes
Non sense, who sold is actually causing the price to go down, who buys is helping it to not go to 0.
Once is decided, if it passes, trading should be stopped (kill the liquidity pools) and then offer to exchange whatever WMEMO you have for the value that is calculated based on the treasury / circulating supply.
2 Likes
Letās look at how hard this would be to actually do with just say 4 people, now imagine doing it with thousands of chain transactions across multiple chains and thousands upon thousands of addresses:
Letās say the treasury had 5 million dollars.
Person A has 1 wmemo he minted at 100k, sold at 50k, rebought at 40k.
Person B has 1 wmemo he bought at 60k and still holds.
Person C had 1 wmemo he bought at 40k and panic sold at 20k.
Person D has 0.1 wmemo he bought for $4k and still holds.
How would you both calculate how much of the treasury each one is entitled to AND do it in an automated way that can calculate all that across multiple chains, including people entering/exiting LP pairs, including people who used TJ, Sushi, Spirit, Thorus, Impermax, and numerous other unknown contracts that might be out there? Including tracking if they transferred wmemo from one of their wallets to another. Or are you saying just to take the treasury and split it evenly among them with no regard to the fact that person A both contributed the most to the treasury and lost the most? With no regard for the fact that doing so would give person D more back than they ever put at risk?
Snapshots have their good uses, but they simply canāt be reasonable used as a means of determining how much somebody should get because they are quite literally a snapshot - they donāt calculate who bought what and for how much a block before, or a block after, or 2 weeks before, or 2 weeks after, etc. It would be insanely complicated to try to create a system to sort through all that and calculate it, and be very prone to missing people all over the place who interacted with contracts unknown to the person writing the contract.
BTW people is now panicking and selling below treasury because of fears(most likely the same that had FOMO at 10X treasury value).
If a proposal passes to liquidate treasury most likely price would get up to backing price as many would arbitrage that and the people that sold out of fear will take the loss.
Unfair? Itās just how the market works, no way to get all rich quick. Thatās why people should understand what they do before trowing money whereverā¦
1 Like
Just wish that taking Omar out and using whatās left to grow can actually work out in the end but who knows now.
If we sell at treasury backing, that does not reward holders who have held for months.
What you are not factoring in is that whales have been sidestepping. Selling high, buying low. And recently, selling low to create liquidation cascades so they can buy below backing.
The solution is ve(3,3). Loyalty has to be rewarded. Itās all on chain. If someone has held for months, that loyalty should be factored into their returns, compensatory or otherwise. I actually hope for a revenue share model because itās the only way to break even. But it has to be with locked staking.
1 Like
yes, creating a āredeemā contract should not be difficult. After liquidating all asset in treasury, the contract will just swap the wMemo at a fixed price (backing price).
Btw I think the best solution is to give all treasury back, then restart a new project if people want.
1 Like
Agree, implement ve(3,3) model for any kind of compensation, all the data is on chain. People can then decide to continue with WL2.0.
Thereās a better way. Please read and support my proposal: A relaunch project that pays daily yields in BTC! Let me show you how - Please read!