Why revenue share model is dumb

1. General Discussion
#11

I think I need to see an actual proposal of some kind stating the mechanics of how it would all work before I label it dumb. At some point it has to be about revenue/profit sharing. We can’t just rebase ourselves into a trillion dollar market cap. Lol.

Now, if the revenue share took the form of a rebase-like accumulation, so as not to upset the apple cart too much, maybe that would be an option.

My biggest personal question about any new structure would be: would there be a wrapped version?

Currently, I hold wmemo only, to avoid the potential tax implications of holding a token that constantly incurs a likely taxable event every 8 hours. I would want my distributions of whatever profit there is to be rolled into the value of my token, instead of being paid out in a dividend. Better for taxes.

7 Likes
#12

I do agree with you that we are in a near unbelievable value appreciating scenario right now. That the backing per time is going up so well is a miracle and the real reason we are all here(thank you team, frogs and VCs). But, yes, if the backing assets are to continue to go up, there needs to be more value to be put in the treasury. However, to ape into wonderland. you have to buy AVAX. And if there is demand for AVAX, the price for AVAX goes up. So the market cap will increase with demand.

The treasury is at 0.7 Billion. AVAX market cap is 35 Billion. Ethereum market cap is at 500 Billion. Bitcoin at 1 trillion. Gold market cap is 11 trillion.

Dani has stated that he is a “multi chain”-guy. We are still in the early game. :frog:

3 Likes
#13

I hear you. No one wants to more taxes to our wasteful governments. If Wonderland could give options for creating a monthly income stream (maybe in stable coin) or rolled into TIME, it might cover different objectives. If someone wants to stay invested, the person selects rollover to TIME. If someone needs a monthly passive income source to financial reasons, the person could select to be paid in stable coin.

5 Likes
#14

I agree completely. Options would be ideal. I’m not in it currently for the monthly income. I want capital appreciation.

#15

Depending on how this is implemented, it seems like it could have a similar event to US FDIC insurance. What I mean specifically is the moral hazard FDIC has caused. I don’t want to take the time to pull up sources but essentially the theory is this:
The banks having a federal guarantee on all depositors funds (up to $250K) has created a culture of overly risky financial behavior on the part of the banks. The 2008 crash and sub-prime mortgage crisis is an example.

This is VERY oversimplified, but I think it’s enough to make my point. I would be concerned that something like this would cause a similar moral hazard. People may feel emboldened to over leverage even more than they are currently, sure that they’ll be bailed out.

Obviously we would need to wait to see an actual proposal to pass judgement, but I though this was worth laying out.

1 Like
#16

Speak the TRUTH frog man!

1 Like
#17

I dont think so because if that model dont attractive we wont be talking hear about it
Its our grid that put us in this project and thats because of that rebase

#18

I feel like we’re all being punished because some ******* decided to overleverage. Revenue share is dumb.

4 Likes
#19

Figured I would toss my two cents into the ring given some of the feedback here.

We have seen no written proposal or concrete thought put forward on what a revenue share would look like so until then I wont speculate on what it would do to the protocol. It raises serious questions to how it would effect demand in general and its post acquisition utility on Abra.

Leaning on what I recall from watching the AMAs with Daniele I do believe he referenced $TIME going to a non-inflationary model. It was in the context of the treasury being used like a DAO-VC, or a launchpad and that’s basically what we could conceptualize into RuneScape or Minecraft $TIME edition. Fees from in game purchases, subscriptions etc would probably augment the protocol rather then replace it unless it was generating Bungie level revenue.

So I am not stressing until we see some proposal that shows how that would augment/replace the protocol. I personally would not vote for something that entirely replaced the ability to mint new tokens but would probably jump at the opportunity to parabolically track APY with market demand, falling to periods of zero or entirely negative where buyback begin and side channel revenue shares built treasury during bear markets.

I recommend watching this AMA where Daniele goes over some of the concepts, at least the first 20 minutes then fast forward to 1:03:00. After this watch the SPELL AMA.

7 Likes
#20

I had listened to this before - but listening again with this context is super informative. Thanks very much for posting. I work in Advertising, and this reminds me that Daniele is the architect of a financial vision that - while I really appreciate being asked my opinion on - I’m best to let him and his team of experts bring into reality. I’m stoked to hear the proposal. It’s an exciting time - hazzah!

4 Likes
#21

Agreed, I think speculating is a waste of TIME (pun intended) without a formal written proposal by the Boyz! :slight_smile:

3 Likes
#22

Wasn’t the premise to this proposal was that this would only be considered when all the rewards from rebases have been exhausted and there were no longer any minters/stakers and not as a replacement of today’s current model?

2 Likes
#23

What if (3,3) doesn’t have to go away. We could lower the dilutive factors and allocate some funds to act as a fund, and create actual revenue. I think both the revenue share and (3,3) can coexist

2 Likes
#24

Totally agree and looking at the comments online under different YouTube videos the general sentiment is the same. Revenue share model is quite common. If I wanted a revenue model I would have gone for a project that does just that. Hell, look at something Evergrow Coin (EGC) that has already redistributed millions. But the reason I went for Wonderland is exactly the rebase model, staking and a great APY. Should this change a lot of people will leave the project and go for another rebase model or even the original one, OlympusDAO

3 Likes
#25

Yeah and get rid of leveraging while we’re at it haha.

2 Likes
#26

This is when I would support changing the model. But this is in the far far far future!

2 Likes
#27

Exactly! The discussion on the discord server was about what the DAO should do when all time tokens have been distributed and that was when the revenue sharing model was brought up.

#28

We should probably wait for some sort of framework to be created before saying revenue share is bad. If we move the revenue share model, the TIME supply will be capped and the incentive will be holding and earning a monthly passive income vs staking and earning more TIME. This will make the value of TIME increase due to the now limited supply and the potential earning of time for passive income.

1 Like
#29

Long term rebasing is not sustainable. You are receiving more and more of an asset that is being diluted exponentially and the price will reflect that. As Sifu has mentioned, when dilution becomes an issue it makes sense to move to a revenue sharing model to maintain/boost the price of the assets we are holding and it would guarantee actual profits long term. Rebasing is great for building liquidity, but eventually dilution will outpace rebase rewards. There is not even an actual proposal yet, so all of the information out there about a potential change is speculation and reactionary FUD

6 Likes
#30

The revenue sharing model is good, but now is not a good time to do so. We are here because the APY is high.
if u change it suddenly, people will FUD even we do the DAO vote
(we maybe in the bear market)

I think the revenue sharing model should happen at Bull market, and same time we also find the evidence of dilution suffering the price down
(look at SMRTr coin)