Redefining the Rebase Structure

Looking at things from the big picture, I see we are only in a good position if we act. Although we are not in a bad position if we do nothing either! Oye! We must prevent from being too safe otherwise we be sorry!

It is just as important to protect the project protocol and ensure its survival through continuous improvements and innovations as it is to ensure the treasury is utilized properly for any purpose we have and any market we face. I suggest we focus our attention on the blueprint protocol of Wonderland as it is now and how it can be expanded on to serve not only itself for all holders near and far, but also the whole ecosystem that is being shaped around us.

Our product is Revenue Share. The current rebase system that governs how the time token works has no place on our platter. This is clear. But rather than suggesting to strip the whole structure and consolidate the entire model of the project to wmemo alone, I offer the idea of restructuring and rebranding what wonderlands “rebase” system is and how it works or to replace it with a new purpose and a title for it that meets the description.

Beginning with the end in mind, the goal of my initial thought is to replace the existing rebase system ruling time token with a “redistribution” model that compliments what wmemo has in place and plans to further establish with it’s bsgg distribution model. While wmemo drips tokens held in the treasury when staked, time when staked will gain relative value as the treasury grows and is used for this specific purpose. This would ideally create complimentary friction between both of wonderlands tokens as well as further establish a working blueprint for Wonderland as both a profitable treasury and a low risk/growth oriented investing vehicle.

Cut out the 8 hour calendar and self replication distribution theme. For example, make “time rev share” a rebranded rebase model that works by adding value to its supply via buying time with profits made from the treasury and burning supply at double the rate in attempts to squeeze out some positive price action while long term momentum is established. The team can offer both time and wmemo products linearly, wmemo rev share kicks back to holders directly via drip distributions of collected assets, while time rev share (without a rebase) kicks back to holders indirectly through its support of the price of time as the treasury grows. This is not something I think could happen overnight as revenue from farms and directionals would be taken gradually to redistribute consolidated value… and possibly even increasing relative value of memo compared to time as reserves strengthen could be an option or variable within our control, then we could resume distributions once reserves are capped so that that growth of the treasury rewards the holder beyond just the represented returns created from price inflation. A duel model is more marketable to potential investors as well, having options goes a very long way when considering to participate.

At this point we would have a lot of power within the controllable metrics between time, memo, and wmemo , they could be pillars in the sense that they support each other for price stability and market action while both also serving as a pair of complimentary rev share services , this is my last fight for the rebase! But please share any feedback or ideas or criticisms, I will be happy to expand on this… take it further and refine it if the community shows favor!

1 Like

I don’t not support this.

Against. Why does everybody want to mess with the rebases anyway? If they dont work they don’t cost anything either so just let it run. Those who want to focus on wMemo do that and those that like the rebases enjoy the rebases. I would say there are more important things to focus on…

I think this proposal has some really interesting ideas and information. I would really love for you to break down some of the concepts you use here and walk through some examples or analogies. As a total newb, I need to sit down with this for a minute to ensure I’m on the same page throughout.

I don’t like the rebases being around, however I’d like to deal with them in the most reasonable way possible. I am positive that I don’t see or know of every angle they could potentially add value to the protocol. Because of this, I can’t say I know for sure it’s a good idea to get rid of them or alter them in any way without serious consideration.

Not having all the information available to me and seeing the fairly difficult obstacles ahead of us - it makes me lean toward @Urubin’s stance at the moment.

It’s something I am concerned about and want to find a solution for that works for as many as possible. I’m just not sure it’s a priority right now and we need to spend adequate time discussing the various options.

This proposal is a really good example of another option, counter to simply shutting them off.

Sure, I agree that it is certainly not a priority to try and transform the entire protocol right now, we still need to make money in general. What would be ideal as I imagine would be to promote discussions challenging ourselves to innovate and expand upon our fundamental roots as much as possible. And teaching ourselves to do so with correct timing.

I am not clinging to my post at all, I don’t think it would work until we had the wheels tight on wmemo and the treasury realizes consistent growth and can be overcollateralized to the point of excess. I was hoping people wouldn’t approach this kind of thing from such a literal perspective in terms of how things seem to be working here in the gov forum. The process suggests the author has immediate intentions. Not me ser, my desire is the dao’s. The only immediate proposal I could imagine in regards to this idea is that we begin to allocate funds for the purpose of redesigning/overhauling the existing rebase mechanism at some point in the future. So that when the right time comes, we can act without hesitation.

I will be happy to expand on my idea though if it serves a worthwhile purpose to the rest of the community.
Like anyone else, I would rather not waste time pursuing vanity.

1 Like