Do not bailout liquidated individuals with treasury funds

1. General Discussion
#129

I JUST CHANGED MY MIND BECAUSE I HAD AN IDEA.

The argument against payback is that it will be dilutive, and unfair to the people who actually took the time and effort to not get liquidated.

But, what if we could bailout the people with tokens locked for a year.
That way, they won’t be able to sell so it wouldn’t really matter to us if the wMemo is with the treasury or the people.
And frankly a year from now, this will only have resulted in trust for the project instead of dilution.

PLEASE READ MY SUGGESTION AND LIKE IF YOU AGREE.

2 Likes
#130

What is their to compensate if you didn’t sell you didn’t lose anything when the price goes back you will have your money with liquidations the money is completely gone you don’t make sense

#131

the price go back and those wo receive funds will sell immediately or leverage again…so we get price pressure or the situation will happen again and again.

Sends completely wrong signals.

If the leverage morons will get repaied, these tokens should be frozen for at least 6 months and cannot be used for leveraging again !!!

#132

Alright boys, Sifu just posted in discord that treasury funds WILL NOT be used for refunding liquidations. Dani and Sifu will instead use their personal assets.

Backed up by this tweet from dani https://twitter.com/danielesesta/status/1486245042322870274?s=20

#133

So, since I was responsible and paid back my Abra loan about $20 before liquidation I am now penalized instead of just getting liquidated and being reimbursed? Would have been nice to know to save 2/3 of my remaining position and not be down 90% overall since I bought in November.

Also, this is not a ‘black swan’ event. This same scenario has played out 3 times now…

#134

Capture
Capture783×153 17.1 KB

1 Like
#135

I’ve been using wmemo as a collateral to buy more wmemo. Am I wrong to do this because I believe in the system? I’ve seen many people who did this too. On top of that Sifu said that the backing price will be 40k but didn’t happen. I got liquidated because I took Sifu’s words too literally and shouldn’t it be fair to ask for some justifications to this?

#136

The problem remains the same as I mentioned before:

the price go back because of buybacks and those wo receive funds will sell immediately or leverage again…so we get price pressure or the situation will happen again and again.

Sends completely wrong signals.

If the leverage morons will get repaied, these tokens should be frozen for at least 6 months and cannot be used for leveraging again !!!

#137

From what i know they dont plan to use treasury funds, and they are fixing the mistake they missed, its their call to do this and i think its for the best since it will show good faith and we wont lose many people in our project that would never come back otherwise.

So this vote is pointless. Just remove it and stop causing FUD.

#138

Sifu clearly said it is a one time thing. This doesn’t impact you. Those who got liquidated are still down on the price same as you are. It’s not like they’re getting their initial investment back.

#139

Lack of sympathy for newbies does not build a strong community. I suggest bailout for frogs caped to 1 MEMO, no strings attached. Investors losing > 1 MEMO in liquidations are indeed speculators exploring the commitment of Wonderland to buyback at RFV.

#140

If an error happens on the code and wipes part of your hodlings, please don’t ask dani or sifu for a refund, don’t even blame them, you took the risk the same way those who leveraged on the promise of a backed price.

#141

Why is Daniele paying back those hit in this latest cascade?

Ask yourself.

Daniele wants to keep the community together. End of the day this was an attack on frogs.

When Daniele says I want to make those attacked whole because they were supporting.

Frogs say to Daniele. No. We don’t support you.

Just make us more money.

Sad.

#142

I am a proponent of helping those forced into liquidation as long as the parameters/terms of restitution are clearly defined, so there can be no frivolous claims now or in the future. In my opinion, helping liquidated frogs is one way to ensure that a rock-solid community is created/maintained—which should be long-term net beneficial for all.

With that said, terms need to be set around the following to mitigate moral hazard, frivolous claims, and undue unfavorable economics for the community at large:

  1. Eligibility: Must be clearly defined and limited to only those forced into liquidation over the last several weeks. Those who sold voluntarily are not eligible.
  2. Restitution amounts: Repayment should be limited to treasury buybacks specifically tied to liquidation sales (i.e., buybacks within the period(s) from the 1st liquation to the last liquidation)–this is most likely several tranches (liq. event 1, liq. event 2, etc.)
    a. If this means those liquidated are made whole, then great, but more than likely, this means liquidated frogs will only receive a fraction of their initial account value. Unfortunately, setting restitution at 100% introduces highly unfavorable economics for others the community.
  3. Vesting: Restitution should be distributed (vested) over several months to prevent immediate sales of liquidated assets. This is a one-time “favor”, not a way to profit at the expense of others.
  4. Community approval: a supermajority (66% of votes cast) needs to vote in favor of restitution. Otherwise, there is a risk of alienating one segment of the community for another.
  5. Finally, this is a one-time action. Future liquidations are not approved. (Leveraging a highly speculative/volatile asset is extremely risky (understatement) and, as such, should be discouraged through the possibility of losing everything.)

On a side note: Abracadabra leverage should be better moderated given market conditions. Leverage ratios should be severely curtailed in down markets when general market volatility is elevated (like now). In up/low vol markets, leverage ratios can be returned to baseline. There are mathematical models for determining the likelihood that a price level will be hit given current volatility.

1 Like
#143

No promises were made. The backing price is treasury assets. Crypto assets. Price not stable. Come on people… we should not have to pay for gamblers or greed.

1 Like
#144

If this were to occur clearly defined structure and transparency would go a long way for community trust.

1 Like
#145
    1. permanently disable wMEMO leverage on abra 1) Buyback and burns should be random and not straight after a selloff. This would make is much more difficult for whale bots to manipulate the market 1) Possibly introduce a sell tax so that whales get rekt trying to manipulate the price 1) Switch to revenue share model ASAP
1 Like
#146

Well said. In total agreement. And they didn’t learn from the first time there was a liquidation cascade. So they go out and hurt us all again. They’ve already hurt us, now they want us to bail them out also?!

1 Like
#147

I do not like bailing out liq’d folks. I’ve been (3,3)ing like a conservative degen, since there is too much price risk to take on ANY amount of leverage. There is no safe price, just “less likely to get liq’d” not “zero chance to get liquidated”. That said, I also don’t want a large portion of people leave the frog nation never to return. We all benefit the bigger and stronger the community is.
As mentioned by others, maybe some long term vesting/unlock as compensation.

I am thinking of a vesting/unlock, where every epoch a certain % is unlocked. BUT we take $wMEMO wallet snapshots at epoch 0 and every epoch, and if the wallet sells their $wMEMO that unlock % goes to 0. So they have to hold wMEMO and stay in the frog nation to earn their vesting/unlocks. Once they leave their unlocks go to 0.
This sounds complex, but there is precedence with how Viperswap gives out emissions, and how vePTP boosts Platypus yields. So the smart contract code is mostly formed, just needs to be synthesized

1 Like
#148

People need to distinguish between “leverage responsibly” and “leverage aggressively”. And then ask yourself the below questions:

  • did the people who 9,9 contribute to the treasury or the development of wonderland? They deposited wmemo as collateral and this reduce supply of wmemo in the market. And some of them use their borrowing to buy more wmemo.
  • did the 9,9 people know that Dani and Sifu would replenish them before the liquidation cascade? No, they did not. And I can assure you that MOST/ALL of us (including Dani and Sifu) has set our liquidation price far below the buy-back/current mkt price of wmemo after the first liquidation cascade on 17/1. So please understand that if the buy back happened in time, we would not run into this dispute.
  • why do we call ourselves frog “Nation”? We built up the wonderland together (of course with different strategies) and when one part of the nation got hit by accident. What will other part of the nation or our leaders do? Look away?
  • was the liquidation cascade happened due to the overall market dip? No, BTC was stable or green before and after the liquidation.

Please reconsider and show your empathy toward those liquidated. NOT all of them are greedy and irresponsible investors.

1 Like