Repay all liquidations under backing price!

1. General Discussion
#23

The docs clearly say the backing price is 1$ and nothing above that is guaranteed. If you got liquidated it’s because you knowingly took a large risk to possibly get a large reward. Well your large risk did not pay off and none of it is any person’s fault other than your own so there is no reason to spend the money of people who DID NOT take as much risk as you to cushion your losses.

The Wonderland treasury is not a charity that rewards big risk-takers at the expense of low-risk crypto investors.

I love everyone in the Frog Nation (even if you got liquidated XD) and have HODLed since 8.5k but this proposal is simply illogical.

30 Likes
#24

me neighter, i still belive in dani and sifu!

4 Likes
#25

The backing price did kick in and the price was pushed back up, they didnt lie but in fact kept their word. These buy backs are not instant and it was never stated they would be. You cant calculate 100% it will be this price if I buy XYZ. It will take time to stablise the price. It was always know that and there would be a manual buy back.

Leveraging always comes at risks in any market, you accept the risks when you make those choices.

15 Likes
#26

I agree with you 100%

#27

The docs also say Wonderland is aiming to be a reserve currency, like Ohm. Yet the founders have said many times it’s actually a VC fund and not a reserve currency.

If it turns out to be a reserve currency that gets rebased to $1, will you be mad? If so, I would point you back to the documents. Just like you’re pointing me to the documents, which are contrary to what the devs and founders have said many times.

2 Likes
#28

And what are they going to do when the people who were not liquidated, get liquidated when these people sell?

Some proposal this sounds like a lose lose all around! Also the backing was always multi sig they cant even get the keys to the wallet without have multiple people to buy the wMEMO back to its backing price it was never going to be an instant buy back!

2 Likes
#29

As someone who has not leveraged my position but benefits from the treasury backing the intrinsic value of my position, it doesn’t make sense for me to vote yes and allow “my” funds to go toward bailing out the holders that leveraged irresponsibly.

21 Likes
#30

^THIS, not only this but the wallet that holds the keys to the treasury is multi sig’ed!

6 Likes
#31

Exactly, people knew the risks and are now looking for blood.

4 Likes
#32

I don’t see this getting voted “for” - although if it did, it would really test that trust that has now been lost in management and the overall protocol.

Secondly, if the treasurer who is held in such high regard got liquidated, how did the rest of us ever stand a chance? It was my decision to leverage and I made sure my liquidation price was lower than Sifu given their knowledge far outweighs mine.

Makes me really think to the skills of management if they allow this to happen to their own bags??

#33

Sifu clearly said on multiple occasions that the team would support the backing price. This DID NOT OCCUR.

7 Likes
#34

I kept my liq price besides SIFU’s as well, thinking it would be safe. Clearly I was wrong and lost 21.5kusd.

6 Likes
#35

There is 100% no fking way that a buy back is going to restore faith in the project? This proposal is making me lose faith in the project, democracy really doesnt work holy shit this sucks. The protocol did what the protocol was supposed to do, wallet is multi sig’ed and I would love for you to show me where any dev has stated that the buy backs would be instant(impossible when multi sig!) or that the treasury funds, or any funds for that matter were to be used to recover people’s liquidations.

4 Likes
#36

Stop referring to leveraging irresponsibly. This is a vote for those liquidated below the backing price
**

3 Likes
#37

This shouldn’t even be a discussion. They have to do it so they can gain our trust back

image
image1114×106 18.9 KB

6 Likes
#38

I lost almost triple this. I am mostly angry at myself for viewing this project with rose coloured glasses and truly believing some words on a Discord channel/twitter.

Absolutely devastated.

4 Likes
#39

image
image1114×106 18.9 KB

2 Likes
#40

This would do a lot for the frogs that misunderstood the concept of the backing price.

To those saying we over-leveraged… That’s not right. Some of us leveraged safely months ago and so when something drops 90% it kinda changes the equation.

Lastly and most importantly… I had the funds to repay my loan and couldn’t. Sushi, understably, is in transition and needs improvement. I was unable to swap for wmemo on sushi or traderjoe for $time.

It was a mess all around and now this is experiment needs some leeway on both sides to properly continue on. The DAO is making $1M a day and can afford to extend some sort of help for those of us who are eager to continue moving forward.

That’s my take lol and I don’t like asking for handouts. It’s just a mess that needs a little tidying up.

10 Likes
#41

It’s easy and sweet to yell “Frog Nation, WAGMI” when all the candles are green and the prices are rising. But this “January 17th Crash” shows that all individual frogs only care about themselves.

We were ENCOURAGED to leverage since this is the one and only utility for wMEMO so far. Not everyone who leveraged are “degens”; some people leveraged just a little bit to get some liquidity out of the investment.

The main point here is that we were ASSURED AND REASSURED by Sifu himself that the protocol would buy back the tokens if it dipped below the backing price. Thus, people WHO TRUSTED the protocol and Sifu kept their liquidation prices BELOW THE BACKING PRICE to avoid liquidation, but got liquidated because the buyback simply DID NOT WORK.

This is not a “You knew the risk” issue. This is a TRUST issue since LOTS of people kept their liquidations below the backing price because they were ASSURED AND REASSURED buybacks would occur, which clearly wasn’t the case.

14 Likes
#42

@Degree0 Genuinely curious. If you had been liquidated, since you also participated, and were only about $100 off from the liquidation floor that was saved $300 late, during a period of time where no transactions to add additional liquidity to protect the collateralized funds were clearing, would you still have the same stance?

2 Likes