I agree with your first point that clear communication about mechanics in the documentation is a good idea for every project. Nevertheless most people ape without ever reading the docs.
Regarding your last paragraph: Sorry to break this to you but 60% health on this type of assets is by no means conservative. Especially considering Wonderland was in an on-going downtrend for weeks with a risk high risk of liquidation cascades. A first step would be to acknowledge that the base assumption was wrong: i.e. 60% LTV is conservative risk taking on a hyperinflationary rebase token. This event should be taken as a lesson in proper risk assessment/management that does not rely on assumptions that can easily break (e.g. buybacks from the team). Certain assets are just riskier to borrow against than others. Crypto as an asset class in general is as volatile as it gets, the main message is always: do not use leverage in crypto if you canāt take the losses. People that donāt reflect on this properly will probably get rekt in the future again. That said I hope you and everybody affected gets back on track and will find success in the future.


