The backing per $TIME does NOT mean that you will get a fiat deposit to your wallet if you get liquidated from a leveraged position.
It means that the intrinsic value of $TIME will be protected.
If you expected buybacks to happen automatically to save you from liquidation then you misunderstood how the buybacks were going to take place.
Repaying liquidations will only cause further problems.
The promise was kept.
I feel sad for all those who lost their money. For some, it was their life savings and it could feel devastating. I also had my liquidation price set to $906 before sleeping.
There were two conflicting forces in my head:
Bear Case [why i should not do (9, 9) and repay my loan]:
Bull Case:
So ultimately, I decided to keep funds ready in my account for just in case scenario but also decided not to repay before going to bed. Also, my python script to wake me up if price fell below ~$1400 wasnāt working as expected so did few modifications, hoping that it will work (now I think that I really took a big undue risk).
Luckily my alarm rang and I was able to pay up majority of my loan. Seeing the volatility, I decided to sell my other crypto assets to pay for remaining amount too and it is at this point that I noticed congestion in AVAX network. I also sold all of my ADA and some amount of ERG coins to buy wMEMO when TIME price was ~$850 as I firmly believe in project because I have thorough understanding of it.
Having said all this, I donāt think Sifu is accountable but atleast he should refrain from strong positive affirmations.
I hope good for Wonderland and the team and most importantly, I really do hope that those who lost their money, make a lot more than their lost amount in future.
Agreed.
If the buyback would prevent the price from falling below backing.
Then we should all leverage right below backing.
That would be the crypto cheat code.
Again, Iām not argument that there isnāt risk, Iām saying that the treasury manager lied about what he was capable of. And what the treasury was capable of, even when addressed about this very topic. Any reasonable person would have deleveraged more, or even sold (even for a loss) over getting Liquidated all based on the Treasury Managers word.
Sifu got liquidated in the $1100 range (per Memo) for $30 million which caused a further liquidation cascade under $800. In all honesty, not a responsible move from the head of the treasury.
Its a tool. It has no bias. Itās Not greed.
Everything is ājust greed,ā if leverage is.
Hereās the thing, your risk tolerance is different than everyone elseās, right?
So, just putting your money in ANY crypro asset at all, could be considered ājust greedā by someone that only puts their money in charities.
You use crypto as a tool to get more money. So, by your own logic, any tool that makes money, āis just greedā
grow up kid.
He created the cascade; by convincing people that the treasury was taking care of the liquidation problem in the first place. I (and many others) would have deleveraged sooner or outright sold for a loss, over being Liquidated. Obviously.
I donāt know if it was intentional but it surely was negligence and definitely a lie, regarding the treasuryās capabilities.
But I am not understanding. What is the lie?
A lie would be.
Yes the backing per (token) prevents it from falling below this price.
It falls below price. Thatās a lie.
But that was never said.
What was said was if it dips below we will buy back.
What was interpreted differently by people was.
How low would can it dip?
How quickly after the dip with the buy back be executed?
If the management said they would buy if it ever fell below backing price , did they specify that buying would take place so it didnāt drop below or once it did drop below they would buy. Itās a big difference , they could take a week to buy if they wanted if it wasnāt specified . so depending on the answer to that is what would be fair . The ones who behaved in a safe manner and didnāt leverage should not be held to suffer their investment for people who behave irresponsible and gamble with leverage no matter how small the gamble itās a gamble.
1.) The manager of the Treasury lied/misled about the treasuryās capabilities in regards to protecting the investors money. And even, Specifically about what happened (very specifically).
2.) Your share of the marketcap would not be affected. The treasury should have been implemented to protect itās investors, as advertised.
SIDE NOTE: You would have plenty more would-be people investing (all the Liquidated + all the people who will exit AS SOON as they break even) over the protection which didnāt get implemented. It would help, not hurt your bags.
3.) Again, he lied about the capabilities of the treasury. No reasonable person on earth would assume that ābacking priceā actually means āsomething way below backing price,ā when referring to it. I understand some nuance. But if youāre advertising or referring to ābacking priceā thatās specifically a price in which you set, to back the price, regardless of how you want to defend or redefine it.
4.) If Sifu had said nothing at all, investors would have deleveraged, or even sold for a loss, over getting liquidated. Obviously. And there would be no debate at all.
The fact that he was bragging/lying/misleading people about the treasury capabilities, is the entire argument here. And itās also what caused the cascade. Otherwise it may have been a regular sell-off.
This is what was sold to the investors.
This is why this argument is happening in the first place.
Itās not just because āpeople got Liquidated and theyāre upsetā
They were lied to specifically about the very subject.
Thanks for listening ser
āBeforeā the backing price.
We wouldnāt be having this discussion at all if there was no ābacking priceā reference at all. It would have been a Liquidation event, and thatās it. But since we were sold a bill of goods (that included a backing price) thatās what makes this argument worth having.
It was always said it would be a multi sig manual eventā¦
Stop partronizing your pairs and spreading FUD, pleaseā¦
Just so weāre clear, Iām not arguing for/against the backing price discussion. My argument is based on what Sifu was explaining about what the treasury is capable of, and what it does.
But, if we are talking about a ābacking priceā then thereās an argument there as well. It could be argued that Sifu said, he was going to keep it above said ābacking price.ā
He misled his investors into a Liquidation cascade in which he caused, by saying the treasury would handle the price action and Liquidation cascade specifically.
Bien dit, le gros!!! Et Ƨa vient dāun autre grosā¦ 
The argument is that we were told/sold specifically that this wouldnāt happen because ātreasury is so strong/big, we can handle this very situationā
Otherwise, any reasonable person would have just deleveraged or sold for loss, as opposed to Liquidation.
I argue, that this caused the Liquidation cascade, specifically because the investors were lead down a path (āprotected by treasuryā) just to get slaughtered.
The treasury should have acted as protection (which is how it was sold) and possibly been damaged (at least a little) in order to protect the investors.
Itās not a stupid position when the crytpo that you invested in specifically talk about protecting against these events. āThe treasuryā is so big in order to protect its investors. It was not used in this regard. And was advertised otherwise.
Wow. You missed the point/argument all together. Try understanding the arguments, before voting one way or the other.
I understand what your saying. I was thinking it wouldnāt drop below. I decided to play it safe and allow that to happen at least once to ensure my thought was correct.
Saying they lied and made you believe that though is a stretch.
Would you agree technically they never said it when the buy back would happen?
Wow. You missed the entire argument. You will not make it, worrying about whether people around you are going to be āgreedyā or not (They are, and always will be, fyi)
The argument is not about leverage or greed, but good luck, frog Stronk, right!?
