Yes, that is true, but lets be realistic, not everyone that is staked right now will stay staked for 1 whole year. And the point is, that if newcomers would come now, the APY would drop anyways, because thats the way it works, more mouths to feed, less food per person, That works with every project. What the strategy that I described does, is rewarding the ones that staked for 1 year with more reward than the ones that stake for 1 day, or 1 week and then sell.
More new stakers to offset what? The APY drop ?
New stakers always means lower APY, doesnt matter if there is boost or no boost.
To increase the APY people need to be minting. And if there is going to be boosted rebase and normal rebase, minting is going to be more profitable, so it will bump up the base rebase and boosted rebase as well.
Can we write a proposal on this and get it implemented. I’m 100% onboard with this.
3 Likes
The rebase won’t be around for one year anyway. We will stop the ponzu minting and rebase, cap supply, invest the treasury, and begin the revenue sharing. Much sooner than 12 months from now. The rebase phase is meant for bootstrapping liqudity. Not long term incentives. It causes dilution and eventually rebases to single digits. That’s the OHM model that was never the plan to follow. So keep that in mind.
To even get this boosted APY you would need thousands of new investors to join all at once. Otherwise, a trickle affect would just cause the weight of boosted users to continue to grow at a speed in which the APY would never get boosted. Considering where we’re at with staked users right now. Our product is sticky. We have seen the number of staked wallets grow; in fact we have almost tripled in one month from 72k to 195k stakers. So your assumption that people won’t be around to capitalize on this boost seems to be very misguided.
And if you get these thousands of new comers, you would have to convince these newcomers they would have to take a lower APY than what’s currently offered promising them we’ll get thousands of more new comers to boost their APY, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Way too complicated and even more ponzu than the current ponzu.
See above as to the problem with this idea addressing your question.
2 Likes
This is the kind of encouragement for the hodlers as it will set a new standard in engagements and building a true community that believes in the project for long term.
You have my support!
2 Likes
Bro sorry, I couldn’t write more replies yesterday, had to wait 24 hours.
To this point, newcomers do not boost APY. This strategy can be applied in the same way for revenue sharing as well as for the rebase. So when rebase stops. we just switch to revenue sharing with the same formula for boosting. There is nothing complicated there. I would tell you that when rebase stops, this strategy will work even better, because there will not be the WMEMO issue to deal with.
Yes, newcomers don’t boost APY. But you’ll never be able to boost long term stake holders and maintain an average APY without someone else getting a smaller piece of the pie i.e. new stakers
If you have more long term stake holders than newcomers, you’ll never be able to pay out this promised boost. I did the math.
Your problem is we are 200k wallets deep and you would need a lot new wallets or else you risk a higher APY, faster dilution, and faster move towards revenue share.
In terms of using this kind of model for revenue share, just silly. No company that pays dividends pays based on time invested.
Really not worth it. Enjoy you’re 10% every 5 days. Stop being greedy. Stop worrying about people trading around rebase. No impact on you in terms of dilution and immaterial movements of price. Sifu and Mods don’t care. I’ll leave you with some quotes from Sifu
More on discord. Just search Sifu
2 Likes
That is the whole point from this system, that long term stakers get larger share of rewards than short term stakers.
You always can pay this boost. The boost is in respect to the ones without boost. Now you either trolling, or purposely ignoring this.
Now I have to tell you that this line doesn’t make sense at all. The dilution does not depend on how many wallets there are but on the amount of new TIME minted. So you clearly don’t know what are you talking about.
This one is funny. Aren’t crypto projects trying to solve the problems with centralized finance, or they wanna copy that ? 
This is not the point of this thread… I guess there is no point to explain a concept to somebody that cannot grasp at least the idea behind it, and is so opinionated that can’t think critically nor constructively.
If you don’t like an idea you can always vote against it at the vote. NO NEED TO BE A TROLL.
Check METAVERSE’s 6,6 POOL idea, it greatly increased their price. We might be able to do something similar here, maybe even better.
I like this proposals well and think it benefits all the long term investors.
2 Likes
I can’t say i’m any good with numbers but when something makes sense, it just does!
I can see some real value in this concept but most of all it is the communication within the community that will count.
Let’s keep pushing forward & support all our fellow FROG!
i strongly disagree.
There is a so called “Compound interest effect”.
The APY isnt APR
Most of the money from TIME for a 1 year span will come in the last weeks
1 Like
First, I guess there was no point for him to explain to you his concept if you cannot grasp at least the idea behind it, and is so opinionated that can’t think critically nor constructively. If you don’t like his idea you can always just agree to disagree. NO NEED TO BE RUDE AND CALL HIM A TROLL.
Second, I don’t understand why all every one cares about is: MORE APY MORE APY MORE APY!!
How can we reward long term stakers? By doing nothing. The longer they stake, the stronger the compounding effect. Wow! That was easy.
Third, by boosting the APY, we only increase the rate at which dilution becomes an issues, the rate a which we go through the runaway and how fast we hit the price of 1$, like OHM wants to achieve, if we were to keep this model.
PS
I think you need to read a bit more on this if you thinking minting is the only thing that causes dilution.
1 Like
I like how people like to shout their opinions, but they don’t even want to put some effort to understand what they are talking about 
.
You just heard the term “revenue share” and you think it is completely something different, but you don’t realize that APY is the same thing ( amount of rewards), no matter what the source is, minting of revenue share.
What is the other reason for dilution now?
I like how you just rant that me , supposedly, don’t understand some concept without pointing out what was the ‘misunderstanding’. Tell us master of defi. how else TIME is diluted right now?
No thanks. Happy holidays to you and your family.
Thats what I thought.
1 Like
Happy we are on the same page.
I use to be in the camp of increasing APY but with my recent exposure to smaller HIGH APY forks I have changed my mind. It is hard to balance this and if the future vision is Revenue share then APY as it is works great. I am against changing how the APY policy works at this moment. Lets just wait and see how the camp develops.
There are plenty of other High APY forks out there just try one of them(at your own caution).
1 Like
I get you and I also agree, increasing the overall APY is not really good for the value of the token. But this idea is not about increasing the overall APY, but differentiating between the long term holders and short term holders, the average weighted APY would stay the same, there would be just slight increase to reward the one that stake long term.
I thought I would use my first post to reply to you fren,
But firstly, please excuse me if what I write just won’t work or is simply stupid, I won’t be offended.
So, I had an idea a while back that with DeFi everyone wants control of their money and not having to deal with the financial institutions of old.
What will seem reasonable or a good idea, will undoubtably be the total opposite for others.
With this in mind, and from spending probably far too much time on reddit, I have seen the following:
Some people don’t understand the compounding interest and why you should apply this to the amount of TIME you gain, not the financial element of it.
Some people panic with even the slightest drop or a good gain.
Some people are investing money they really can’t afford to lose, which if that’s what they want to do then fine, we have no control over what an individual does with their money.
Some people heavily believe in the Wonderland project and the eco-system and on the other hand some don’t.
Some people don’t fully realise that pulling rebase rewards out stops your compounding ontop of that rebase.
Lastly, and something I will only go over briefly, looping MIM, there just seems to be a lot of confusion.
Typically and somewhat more bluntly, we have what seems to be a couple of groups of people, and please anyone reading this I am not trying to cause offence, but we have the clueless, the clued and the clued up.
So, now I have mentioned problems, how do we solve them?
As I mentioned earlier and in what is also my personal opinion, I should be able to do whatever I want with my money and I don’t want regulations or rules telling me otherwise, I should be able to make my own choices - the key word here being ‘choices’
Let’s suppose for a second that we have 2 individuals that are invested in Wonderland. Person A wants to buy in now and hold, whereas Person B is nervous and will make decisions based on a whim. How do we appease both but still make Wonderland an attractive proposition?
OP I like your idea of a Rebase Booster, but let’s try something additional to that.
Person A wants to hold, we know that… so let’s offer him the opportunity to voluntarily lock his staked TIME for a 1 year period. He will automatically qualify for a higher rebase or rebase booster in recognition of him locking his tokens in. If he then wants to add additional TIME to his existing balance again there is a choice for him, he can add it to his already locked in balance or keep it outside of this and do as he pleases.
Now Person A wants to wrap his MEMO into wMEMO and borrow MIM, well no problem, he will still benefit from the higher rebase reward or the rebase booster as he has locked in TIME. If he wants to loop MIM back into TIME, this process could be automated so it adds the additional tokens into the locked total.
Whether the rebasing stops and the reward method changes , Person A will automatically receive a higher amount. Person A is already holding long term as he believes in the project so probably won’t be too worried about a change in the reward system coming into play.
However, as a caveat let’s say Person A doesn’t like the change in rewarding, he should be given a clear window of opportunity to withdraw from the locking as this is a change from the original inception of the process. I feel that this could be likened to a cell phone contract, where there is a price change that is out of scope for the contract, you are given 30 days to either stay on the new price plan or change provider, even though your only part way through your existing contract, if that makes sense.
If Person A does decide to exit the lock due to this, at the point where he exits, his collateral is automatically moved outside of the higher rebase reward/booster tier.
This still leaves us with Person B, let’s say this person is new to crypto and either has doubts about the project, maybe just wants to test the project out or really just wants to make a profit and run.
Well, Person B isn’t going to lock in any amount whatsoever nor he is even going to entertain it. Well the question now is, we have satisfied Person A as someone who is willing to see out the project over the long term, how do we appease person B and keep him interested?
This is fairly simple, when Person B invests in TIME, then stakes it, he will still benefit from a good APY and also a good rebase rate but Person B can exit whenever he chooses to, just like we all can at the moment. Maybe he wants to go and get rugged with another project haha! or panics when the price tanks and wants out before he loses any gains.
It is nigh on impossible to appease everyone in every scenario, but I do agree that early investors and long term holders should be rewarded in someway, but people who either don’t want to get in early or hold shouldn’t feel like they have missed out and therefore we lose them to a different project.
I read another post on here from a member saying that it should be up to them as to what they do with their money or investments and that’s totally right. The same can be said if I had no choice but to lock my TIME for a year, would I risk it? Who is Wonderland to tell me what to do with my finances? However, give me a choice, a voluntary choice, well now this changes things. I might feel more inclined to do it now because the decision is now up to me as an individual, there is an additional reward mechanism in place if I do and if I am looking at it, then I must clearly be interested or intrigued in it.
Just a thought