Revenue Share Mechanism Proposal

Hello I thought a proposal for revenue share mechanism. I made a diagram:

The idea It is the there is % of the treasury targeting different area:

  1. Revenue Share: This should be Stable Coins LP’s that generate 10–25% APR. ( ~70% Treasury)
  • A % of the revenue generate by the LP’s should be destined for get more Investments ( % >= 65 %)
  • A % of the revenue generate by the LP’s should be destined for revenue share mechanism ( % >= 30 %)
  • A % of the revenue generate by the LP’s should be destined for WL operation Team salary, etc ( % <= 5%)
  1. VC Seed Investment: should be defined a target to sell the Investment. The income or loses generated for this could be spend in three ways. ( ~25% Treasury)
  • Get more LP’s
  • Incentives long term holders.
  • Airdrops (bonus)
  1. Other Investment: Like Avalanche Liquid Staking or other chains or investments. ( ~5% Treasury)

I will attach an image below that represent the distribution and the idea.

The distribution and the % it is an example, should be studied for the new administration and they will have a word on this. I just like to present the idea for revenue share.

I am working to set the Math behind here: https://github.com/NimrodHunter/Revenue-Share-NTF/blob/master/proposal/Revenue_Share_Proposal.pdf

I really like this mechanism, I am a solidity developer I will start to work on this. I was living of my earn generated by trading, but now I am 95% down, liquidation included. Then I am looking for a job rn, if you know any opportunity let me now.

I been updated the proposal in this repository: https://github.com/NimrodHunter/Revenue-Share-NTF

At the end I will let you a poll to figure out if you liked the idea in general or not.

  • I like the Idea in general (can be done changes, but i like it)
  • I don’t like it at all

0 voters

1 Like

I agree to all of your points except the 30% LP revenue to be used for dividend distribution. IMO, WL is a growing protocol and the best use of funds will be at WL rather than in my wallet. People looking for a regular income can possibly have a strategy where they sell a small portion when there is a X% gain on their investment (systematic withdrawal plan).

Additionally, this proposal can be enhanced to use the treasury as “Liquidity as a service” with the staked wMEMO acting as the governance token to direct liquidity to the suitable pools taht pays the max bribes. We can have liquidity buckets that will be voted on to direct liquidity to a pool of choice. these “liquidity buckets” should not be more than 1% of WL treasury and there should not be more than say 50-60 such liquidity buckets.

2 Likes

I also believe the APY/rebase rewards should be kept. This is the #1 most of investors came in WL in the beginning.

5 Likes

i like and agree.
especially, distributed NFT is GOOD and similar to ve NFT.

2 Likes

Stake and Mint…that’s the core of WL and that should never be changed or removed.

1 Like

Thanks for your comment, revenue share % can be less. This it an on going discussion.

And I liked your idea of use the wMEMO staked to generate more revenue, this could be included in the proposal on the “5% of other investments”.

Yeah helps to grow the treasury.

This definitelty needs to be improved. Wmemo fixed most of the issues ( dillution/inflation partially ). All we need now is a coin burning mechanism, and MAYBE a small buy/sell fees to help the treasury without bonds or investments.

1 Like

The risk of having a revenue share of a particular percentage at a particular date has a possibility of getting gamed. We may have minimum lock and other arrangements, but IMO we should do away with any dividend distribution plans…that’s unnecessary IMO.

Revenue share only for those who stake wMEMO an get the NFT, also more APY proportional to your locking period and if the revenue it is weekly the minimum period could be weekly too. I think this discourages the game that your are taking about. Revenue share was a promise, a lot of people stayed at wonderland for that promise and suffer big loses

The % of rev share should be 50% or higher, the idea that the devs can do better than the money in our pocket is absurd. Frogs can decide to buy more memo if they feel this way but the revenue coming to holders needs to be significant and increase over time to incentivize holding. The better the payouts the more attractive Wonderland will be to other potential investors and will create more buying pressure on wmemo. wmemo is already non dilutive so the buying pressure will be felt immediately on the price of the coin which will be an added rocket booster to WL stake holders. This project is all about the stake holders and that needs to be reflected in the payouts. We are here to create generational wealth without the Suits. THAT IS IS THE ESSENTIAL PROMISE OF WONDERLAND, THAT IS WHY WE BOUGHT IN. LFG!! WAGMI!!

3 Likes

Could go both ways. One could argue that the more money goes to the treasury, the more deals we can make and the more money we can generate. This would also result in higher payouts.

I’ve even seen some people indicating 100% should go to the treasury so we can boost the price action like most tech stocks instead of doing revenue sharing :man_shrugging:

2 Likes

Right now with no revenue model only Treasury management all the money get back to the treasury but the price of wMEMO it is even below the backing by the Treasury, because of this, i believe that this model it not enough to have long term holders as Wonderland want in order to succeed.

Because of these, raised the need to create a mechanism to have long term holder that feels they a earning periodically like when they sold the rebases (the old system) that its why the revenue model came, to complement the old rebase system, because this system proof that not work well when the market it is doing a correction or it is a bear markets.

I think should be a balance between theses two factors, even that balance could be dynamic. When it is a correction or bear market increase the % of revenue to incentive long term holders, and when it a bull market, decrease % of revenue to leverage the Treasury. Actually each % can be dynamic.

1 Like

I voted against as scrapping the APY you kill all trade that we been here for the APY for my bag of Time to trade after and taking the market hit.
If you keep the APY and merge profit share with I might change my opinion.
20-30%Apr well this would benefit the whales by giving them a constant revenue.
For 90%of us this would be definitely a distaster.
Unless you gave me a real perspective on how much I’ll get with my last 1000 USD from my initial 8500

1 Like

Rebase system keep going on. I don’t know if WL want to cut off this. But the rebase system itself didn’t add real value, it is just inflationary model. The real value come from the Treasury Management, the community support and long term holders. The idea of this revenue share proposal it incentive long term holder and the community community identity. I think this idea treat the same way regular holders and whales holders, even whale usually do more trading than regular holders, in this scenario this proposal it is better for small frogs and people that know less about trading.

Yes but you speaking about pennies with profit shares .Now trading is another level.I would refrain to cut the APY is not the biggest problem.
Inflation can be tackled by
1.Expanding the value of the project more investors more value added to Time and Wmemo
2.Burning mechanisms by transferring the asset value towards new liquidity pools to realise more revenue.
3.Reducing the APY gradually every 1 year cycle as reward for early adopters
4. Introduction of profit share once the project matures
The main resistance you have is from small traders like myself as we’re here for the bags no matter the inflation as this will be stopped after a while.There is no more minting so inflation is overall bad I understand but when the project grows in value is what reducing the impact of inflation.
The main trouble is that there’s no burning mechanisms this is what we need to focus more.
However you didn’t respond to my questions in numbers.
Let’s say I have 1000 USD with your proposal how much I’ll get monthly based on your proposal?

1 Like

Hello. I do not know the exact amount, I only know that you can’t spend more than you generate, at least for mid o long time.

  1. You are talking about to keep the Ponzi Scheme, Is the idea that WL it is only sustainable if more people come in, has been tested to not work well when the market it is doing a correction or it is a bear market. We have that model now and here we are…

  2. I think burning it is not a bad idea, can complement the revenue share mechanism. I think it is another proposal here in the forum and i support it.

  3. APY It just a bait to incentive newcomers, do not generate value at his own, it is just inflationary, when you mix it with bonds you can build a Treasury like WL did. But now bonds are closed and we are in a bear market and the people have fear to get in, then the % on newcomers goes really down and the Ponzi Scheme falls.

  4. I think we are in this situation right now, and this proposal I tried to targeting that.

The value of this project come from the community, newcomers, bonds and Investment. In the market as it is right now only left Investments. Then revenue share come here like a solution to have passive income even in the bad days like we are now.

I like burning too, bc generate reward equally for every holder. But I like most this revenue share mechanism because reward long term holders.

I really don’t want to make the math, because depend of how much wMEMO will be staked, then it is variable, also depend of how long you will stake. Your can assume some % of total supply staked and make the math of your own

1 Like

Ok I did the Math :joy::rofl: according to your data.

  1. At the actual Wmemo price for me would be around 45 USD monthly at the actual Wmemo price of 25307.32 USD on Coinmarketcap (at the moment I’m writing this)
    If Wmemo goes black to 100k I will have 179 USD monthly ok?
    I mean according to your Logic of profit share for 90%of people Wmemo must be like 1 million USD to be able to break even and get profit okay?
    Since with the APY yes if Time would end even 5-6 USD in one year I would get X2 profit on my initial investment.
    Yes what you sustain is utterly absurd and has no Logic unless if you’re holding at least 1-2 Wmemo profit share is profitable but this is like 0.9%-1.5% of all Wonderland users as we the rest we own fractions of Wmemo.
    So yes that’s why I’m actually again any proposal of profit share before APY .
1 Like

It was confusing to me your result. But I gave you one point, I will work on the MATH of this because it very important to visualize a real outcome, actually i am working in this right now bc i want to develop the smart contracts.

Your reward depends on five factors:

  1. The revenue to share (% of earn of the treasury)
  2. How much your stake.
  3. When you stake
  4. How long you will stake.
  5. The total number of people participating in this revenue share.

This means an early adopter plus long term holder is balanced with how much you stake.

I repeat, I am working on the MATH hopefully I will come back with this later today. Thank for your questions.

I updated the proposal and add this: https://github.com/NimrodHunter/Revenue-Share-NTF/blob/master/proposal/Revenue_Share_Proposal.pdf The main idea it is there but i still need more time to develop the right algorithm.