Yeah i just made a post on that. That metaverse card game investment doesn’t look good to me. I like video games and i thought they were gonna invest in some sort of RPG. I should have known it wasn’t gonna be Red Dead Redemption 3 or Witcher 4 lol. I’m not at all interested in no futuristic sci fi pokemon 2.0.
Burning now is a short term gain, only for investor`s with a short term mindset, as it will increase the price of Wmemo now, but be detrimental to the treasury, as we would have spent money on assets we intend to destroy. Win Lose.
If we grow the treasury, by selling at a later date the assets we have just bought, for a profit via non dilutive minting, we increase the backing price organically, and positively effect Wmemo` s headline price. Win Win.
Option 3 - with amendments.
1 Like
Honestly Danny and Sufi need to have a lock period for all investors for a year then, sufi can focus on the investments. They should start it as soon as possible. Then they can just worry about investing into project for us.
Whats cool about this is smaller investor can get in vs a hedge fund. All hedge funds require a one year investment lock up so they can just invest and not have clients bothering them.
1 Like
I think we over-rotate here on the value of non-dilutive minting. What does it matter if we Burn now and Mint more later (at minimal discount) vs Buy now, HODL and perhaps “non-dilutive” Sell later? Either way we spend precious Treasury resources to defend market price. Either way, coins come off market now and return later (if Treasury wants to raise fresh, non-wMEMO capital) and so potential future price pressures will exist. Otoh, if we Burn now, then Backing per wMEMO holds steady, market prices hold ~steady and those who have leverage are protected. If we don’t Burn, then Backing per wMEMO will drop with every repurchase, leading to further price decline and as a result we really don’t accomplish much at all. At least that’s how my smooth brain is seeing it. Am I missing something important?
Option 1 seems to me to be the best of these three options.
I am in favor of options 1 and options 2
But when rewarding long term hodlers, they should programm that if you moved your wMEMO to your cold wallet (ledger, etc.), that the hodling “timer” doesnt reset.
Option one is defiantly the best for everyone who has held through this crash.
1 Like
Option 3: Do Nothing
Wonderland is a long-term investment. The tokens have more potential value later on down the road. Burning only gives us a bump in the short term and only hurts the protocol instead of helping it. We lose a lot more by burning now rather than allowing the protocol and investments to play out.
No Burn 
3 Likes
Im with this proposal as well.
Prefer not to burn buy backs. Would love to have that extra capital available to deploy as the market improves. We can earn multiples on the value that the treasury holds when the market normalizes. If you burn, you just redistribute the value of the tokens burned…which is a fraction of the current market capitalization.
I’ve lost a huge amount of value…like many other investors. Part of the deal that goes with risk.
Just as it is with those who choose to play the leverage game. SIC above.
That said, priorities and incentives need to be clearly defined thru protocol behavior:
- Don’t burn to prop up a price…especially at the expense of the treasury (the golden goose that is the VC).
- Don’t reward folks who are playing with leveraging fire. You get burned…OWN IT.
- AirDrops & Drips to 3,3ers…incentivize longer term commitment.
Fast n Furious burns too many people whilst slow and steady build trust, attraction, and real power. Let’s build it, not burn it.
4 Likes
you are right, yet burning directly would be better then use DAI for buyback and then burn.
This makes sense @Syn and @NalXes @Carli
Should we propose a new option: airdrop x amount of MEMO or wMEMO to loyal and long-term investors and burn the balance?
How can we get this added as an option to the proposal?
Thank you.
Im with the airdrop of wmemo for loyal holders
Airdropping wmemo to holders will put more sell pressure on wmemo. Then we drop to the backing price again, we do buybacks again and drain the treasury. Then with the buyback again more airdrops? Would be a vicious circle, does not make a lot of sense to me. I think we are better off rewarding long term holders with higher rewards for continued holding. Long term holders who are still holding should receive more rewards compared to people who just bought wmemo now.
That works but rewards in what? Do we get a higher apy if we hold longer? Than someone who just started? Because giving someone a higher APY would translate to an increase of wmemo rather than simply a memo increase.
First of all we are loyal holders which means we won’t sell if we get wMEMO airdropped. We are so loyal that if we were airdropped MIM we would just buy more wMEMO.
We believed in the project and the founders so much that we paid a massive premium to be part of this revolutionary movement and we held when whales side stepped.
We haven’t sold and will not sell. It would just be nice to be rewarded for holding and believing in the team and project.
2 Likes
For rewards: just a slightly higher percentage on revenue share. Not apy. Apy on time is already not doing anything now.
If you go for an airdrop for holders, I would go for a locked airdrop (staked wmemo), generating reward (revenue share). If you give people wmemo locked for a year, they will not sell a year later if it’s generating a nice passive income by then. This gives sifu an entire year to make it worthwhile for current holders to keep it staked after that locked year as well.
2 Likes
The purpose of aidropping to loyal holders would be to reduce the sell pressure, rather than add to it.
Sidesteppers have continually tanked the price for a more beneficial re-entry, causing the WL protocol to suffer. The liquidation cascade was bad enough and has already resulted in the loss of many loyal holders. I think it would therefore be wise to make sure the remaining loyal holders are not lost as well. They are the ones that have lost out the most, and because of this I think there is a lot of sentiment that they are getting punished for supporting the protocol the most, as their percentage of ownership has now dwindled through manipulation.
With this in mind, future price increases, I think, are likely going to see us lose many loyal holders through sidestepping in their attempt to re-gain what they have lost, percentage-wise, to bring themselves on par with those that have manipulated the protocol and thereby bringing the price back down. This is why I think it is important we take steps now to minimise this, and such a step should help to reduce that sell pressure.
You make a good point about the ‘locked’ aidrop, although my concern would be that the long-term holders will consider this to be salt on the wound - whilst manipulators enjoy their increased ownership share immediately without any lock-in period, long-term holders have their reward locked over the year. Each time, long term holders are getting the worst deal.
Logistically, I think it would also just be easier to do an airdrop in terms of developer time, rather than creating an extra layer of complexity by adding varied percentages to revenue share based on time-held for a locked reward. That would surely take longer than an airdrop, and would not be able to be done in tandem with a burn if the burn proposal goes ahead.
@kbanna I’m not sure how we get it added as an option for the RFC, but I think it looks as if there is enough interest to at least have it on the table. @Ponzi Is this something you would consider combining with your burn proposal for an option at the next stage?