Just because there is a backing price does not mean you have zero risk borrowing below said price. There will always be risk involved with leverage, especially with crypto and especially with projects like wonderland that are extremely new.
3 Likes
Fuck people that leveraged, period. They know the risk they took. There’s people that have been HODLing TIME/MEMO/wMEMO for months and have seen no rewards for it. There’s been people that have been liquidated in past liquidation cascade events, they didn’t get buybacks. All this does is encourage more gambling with wMEMO. This doesn’t reward holders, only those that wanna abuse the system. Much like whales that are trying to abuse the buyback system.
Frogs don’t leverage.
12 Likes
I understand, but I don’t think its up for we to vote on it. It something they should decide.
Sifu clarified in the discord just earlier that treasury funds will not be used to bailout the liquidated. It’s coming from Dani and Sifu’s personal funds.
1 Like
The DOA shouldn’t be paying back anything. Borrowing isn’t playing the 3,3 game. Those of us that are playing the 3,3 game should get rewarded. That’s what Wonderland was all about.
1 Like
Exactly what happened to me. Thank you for speaking up anout this.
1 Like
Non-leveraged holders are against leverage until they realize the fees from abra contributed to the Wonderland treasury.
Non-leveraged holders are against the announcement for the refund below backing, but don’t have any problems with a backing price being advertised on the main page and the tweets from the team that it would be supported.
Non-leveraged holders are against any assumed (and it’s been made clear that it won’t!) reduction of the treasury, but haven’t considered that any treasury maintenance is pointless when faith has been lost by investors.
No-one is also addressing the AVAX congestion issues that occurred to prevent those who did want toe deleverage as well.
===
To be clear, as someone who got liquidated well below the backing on the first black swan on the 18th, I’m all for not refunding liquidations ABOVE the backing. I even deleveraged twice before the 18th and even then still got liquidated 50% below the backing.
This vote needs to be clarified that refunds will not occur for liquidations ABOVE the backing. It could even be extended that your refund is proportional to your liquidation % below the backing.
Lastly, this discussion will be biased as those who got liquidated below the backing would’ve lost faith in the project and therefore won’t contribute to the vote/discussion.
6 Likes
Respectfully disagree - a good leader takes accountability for something like this. They are at fault for not implementing a better fail safe or hiring more people to keep watch to ensure buy backs happened before liquidations started (even though it’s a multi-sig). This is on them not the wMEMO holders.
4 Likes
The 3rd option should have been: giving bailouts like 40 - 50% (partial amount not full)
but I personally oppose the idea of refund those who got liquidated, overleveraged people signed up for this and other frogs who play 3,3 since the beginning will lose trust in the project, as a consequence the team implicitly suggesting all frogs should leverage. This idea is dangerous for the project in long term, careful
2 Likes
only if voted against here. Otherwise the plan was to make them whole with wmemo from buybacks (aka tres)
I don’t think most are understanding what happened here…
At time of leveraging, lets say the price was $60k and you take out 25% loan/leverage against your current position and you see the liquidation price is at $29k. Then you look to see what Wonderlands backing price is (this means that when the price falls below this price, Sifu will use treasury funds to buy memo to bring the price up to help prevent liquidations), its at $40k. You think ok my liquidation price is $29 and thats well below the backing price of $40k.
Now there is one thing that over time if you see the price slowly reach the bottom you would have time to pay back your leverage…now the big issue here is the price dropped a TON in one hour. Not alot of people can keep an eye on this all day and no one would of thought the price would drop that much that fast. Never in the history of this project has that happened that quickly.
4 Likes
case seem to be pretty clear. no bailout. if they want to bailout at least make it half for bailout guys and the other half across every other holder equally, so that at least everyone profits from it and not only the gamblers. otherwise you arent better than the big bad suits that get bailed out by governments from everyone elses money.
3 Likes
The first thing sifu said was that they were gonna pay people that weren’t over leveraged with liquidation price well below backing.
2 Likes
why are we voting on leverage? leverage is a known risk. what’s the point of taking the risk if you know you’re NOT going to lose anything because you’ll just be bailed out? how many “black swan” event excuses are we going to give? this project is BRAND new and we’re already acting like BIG BANKS getting bailouts because of greedy leverage.
7 Likes
just dont leverage. easy. or take the risk. its your own free decision, you took the risk and got burned. that happens. everyone knew that the positions arent unlimited and that buybacks happen AFTER the crash to get back to backing price. which is why its called buyback.
3 Likes
I’m for the bailout. There was a backing price, we all had faith that sifu & team would uphold that. I put in more money because of that trust that was given to me. I leveraged responsibly and still got liquidated. On top of that, there was so much traffic it was difficult to even manage or deleverage your position; borderlines impossible. As others have stated, this was a coordinated attack.
This was a different kind of liquidation. If you were injured while working due to an aggressive attacker, you’d want to be fairly compensated right? Same concept. Just because we are taking a bigger risk doesn’t mean we deserve this harsh abuse.
2 Likes
But being a good leader is qualitative. I mean, this is something they’ll decide if they will or not do. My point is, we don’t the power to vote and decide on their wallets. If they chose this way great, but we’re better off with an alternative ready.
1 Like
agreed - I deleveraged last liquidation runs and took a fat loss to protect my position. I literally submitted all tx 5-10x GAS price
3 Likes
This discussion will be biased as those who got liquidated below the backing would’ve lost faith in the project and therefore won’t contribute to the vote/discussion.
1 Like
I am a non leveraged holder and I am totally ok with people leveraging if they so please. Just like you said, it benefits the protocol. The problem I do have is bailing out those who took that risk. Anyone who leveraged knew they were taking on a great risk and to bail them out only encourages over leveraging. If you’re not ok with losing your investment, don’t use it as collateral. If you are, be damn sure you are ok with that because if you do lose your investment it’s on you.
6 Likes