Go home kiddo. Da fuck you talkin about
Yup, this.
If there was consideration given to people who bought at ATH vs whales stacking wMEMO now.
maybe exchange SPELL/wMEMO at a ratio of what spell was when wMemo was bought at.
so people bought at 100K would get a better ratio than people buying at 20K…maybe.
1 Like
If we wanted invest in spell, we would have done so back in October/November when we invested into Time. If we had done so we would have a much larger bag than what is being proposed now. There should be a premium for the merger thats how it goes not spot price what kind of slap in the face is going on here
3 Likes
This proposal is unilaterally skewed towards current SPELL token holders while wMEMO holders are further diluted.
Basically the smaller fish is eating the bigger fish and benefits from his treasury too. Why not the other way around? Why not Wonderland buys Abra?
At this point in time wMEMO token holders should in theory benefit from the $800M treasury that Wonderland has. It was pointed in the past that Dani and Sifu are managing this treasury and deploying funds towards investments of all sort with the scope of growing it.
since wMEMO tokens are not created (so already maxed out) there is no dilution on wMEMO / treasury backing BUT when the merge will happen all of a sudden, ex wMEMO holders which were once backed by a 800M treasury will represent less than half of the SPELL token holders while being backed by the same 800M treasury. that means the the backing per token will instantly mean less than half to what it was when wMEMO existed.
Question to all current TIME/MEMO/wMEMO holders : if at this moment, instead of this merge you would have had the possibility to invest in an ICO that raises 800M with the scope of being an investment fund, but you will only own less than 50% of that fund from the get go, would you invest?
I certainly would NOT.
I personally see this proposal just a way to cover dirt under the rug. If Wonderland is today a fund with a 800M treasury, it has no need to merge with Abracadabra. YES, they can collab, yes Wonderland can lend money to Abra or use Abra or invest in Abra, and make money out of Abra, but to merge under these conditions is plain stupid or malintent.
3 Likes
My first take on this proposal is that it is hard to swallow due to the presentation that we would now be acquired by another company. Taking away the fact that we did not invest into Wonderland to now be given Spell, the proposed “merger” also dilutes our stake even more. My points are below:
-
Treasury Revenue Dilution - Based on the AMA, Abracadabra has 98 billion Spell to give to Wonderland investors to buy the treasury. The treasury will generate revenue to be given to all Spell holders. There are 200 billion Spell tokens so Wonderland investors are now sharing treasury revenue with those extra Spell tokens, further diluting any potential revenue generated. I am also a Spell holder and from that seat, I will win huge from this proposal. From my investment in Wonderland, I am now losing more of any potentially generated funds.
-
Premium Consideration and TWAP - With the current state of Wonderland in serious flux and the price/backing price bleeding, the timing of this proposal is concerning. Given Point 1 - where non-Wonderland investors will now be benefiting from our investment and faith - is there consideration for the sale of Wonderland to Abracadabra to include a premium for wMemo holders. This would come from the amount of Spell the Treasury is receiving for holding wMemo itself, which would be a large sum of the 98 billion Spell. Yes, this would decrease the treasury balance, but as an investor in Wonderland why would I approve a sale where I am splitting revenue with non-Wonderland investors if I’m not getting some sort of premium in the deal?
The other part of this is determining the wMemo/Spell price. Is it $40k per wMemo or different. Is this based on the backing price, which the devs seem to want to ignore as relevant right now? Or should it be based on a time-weighted average price of the backing price from X amount of days? We know the amount of Spell we would receive (98 billion) so I think the question is how are WE compensated opposed to the treasury that is being given. Otherwise, the math is simple and it’s # wMemo/98 billion Spell.
-
Counter Offer - I don’t know how much room we have to negotiate here, but what if we counter with asking for more Spell. Abracadabra is highly profitable and it sounds like they only have 80-ish billion Spell (minus 18 billion from Daniele and Merlin per the AMA) to offer. Maybe they have to buy back more Spell from the market for investment here? This moves the Spell price up and we receive a better return from selling our revenue share from Point 1. Sifu being the treasury manager, I would expect him to objective negotiate for the best deal for Wonderland aside from Daniele.
-
Remove Daniele From Negotiations - I highly respect Daniele and his prowess for success. I also feel he is too intertwined in both projects to act objectively. This is also for appearances. Let Sifu and Merlin hash this out and remove Daniele from these negotiations on price, or seat him on Abaracadabra’s side since he is putting up his own Spell for the purchase… I know this may only be front facing, but it’s a bad look to see the conflict of interest. How can Daniele negotiate the best price for Wonderland investors when he is part of the purchasing company?
-
Final Take - I don’t like any of this, where Wonderland is concerned. We initially invested in a completely different product that devolved into where we are currently (a potential sale to Abracadabra). It’s hard for me to not feel like this bait and switch was premeditated and we were gaslighted the past few weeks to end up here (but this is my frustration speaking). I think we should ask for a bigger payout from Abracadabra since we would now be sharing profits with other Spell holders that never invested in Wonderland to begin with (e.g. me on my individual Spell investment side). I also think the treasury should pay out a sizable portion of its Spell allocation to wMemo holders as compensation for the lost revenue generation and general fuckery that has happened.
I don’t like selling Wonderland, but at this point, I don’t see a viable option for Wonderland to survive on its own, let alone generate any type of return to recoup the heavy losses. During the AMA, Squirrel stated that if Wonderland were to remain separate, the treasury buybacks would most likely have to stop which leaves us completely uncovered for price destruction. It’s a shit position to be in, but at least Spell is a working product with proven use cases. I think it is the best of the crappy options for any of us to recoup at least some of our money.
14 Likes
exactly. Wonderland holders can invest in SPELL but not be diluted by current SPELL holders
1 Like
I’m down 70.89% from my initial investment. Will this conversion to SPELL compensate me for my loss? I don’t mind getting SPELL which I have already. But how about my huge loss? I don’t mind fully investing and transferring my wMEMO to SPELL, but with some sort of compensation, because I could have just spent all my money on SPELL a few months ago, instead of TIME - So let’s merge, but I need an extra incentive for my loss. Good luck everyone.
1 Like
no it will not. you will be furthermore diluted
glad to see that there are people in here actually aware of the consequences and not blindly following the leader.
Dani and Sifu made fuck up after fuck up and besides constant remodeling tactics nothing good has actually happened.
If they want to regain Wonderland holders trust back, they should actually do something +EV for them not use them for exit liquidity.
Worst decision was switching from TIME. Everyone here came for the APY, that feel of receiving a 1.8% daily on your (declining money) was what kept most. Yes its a ponzi, but we all hoped we can earn more than the price depreciation + the treasury was constantly growing from the bonds.
wMEMO became a sitting duck not doing anything else but be just a tradeable token and a high risk leverage token that self imploded. It feels like all SBF futures markets that only go down.
Yes, I am aware of the damn cookie jar/ token split analogy, but psychologically wanting to earn yield and having a token that does nothing is what let to this outcome.
1 Like
I don’t really have a choice, even though one is presentled. I don’t like those kinds of choices. It probably is a good idea. The group of different appllications and projects is what has always given me confidence in the outcome of my investment. In my mind these projects are already one. Additionally, this is the same structure that the other successful DAOS are adopting. This isn’t original, but this ecosystem is the biggest, and it has an edge for that reason. So I will vote for this. I see the value. Under other circumstances, I might feel no hesitation. But there is a lot suspicious behavior right at the same moment this was proposed. And most people are at a loss at a time when you asking them to exchange something they had built up for something else of some questionable value. The overall message sent out is we reduced the value of your investment but now we’ll buy it back at a discount. You can keep it or accept the buy out. It’s in very bad form. It is the definition of what corporations do to the small people. It’s exactly opposite what the supposed Frog nation is about. So merge to your delight but if you really mean to be a serious organization you’re going to need to find somebody who can hold the team accountable going forward. You need internal standards of operation if you are going to be a big player.
2 Likes
Vote against.
Criticism:
- Selling the treasury at the bottom.
- Points of mismanagement: WL quite literally exploded, and was probably a bigger success than the founders anticipated, as such human error is to be expected. Yet the transition towards wMemo, RevShare and a general sense of structure is something yet to be delivered on, even while we hold plenty of resources to do such.
2 Likes
I like this proposal: Proposal: buy abracadabra
Let WONDERLAND buy ABRA instead of the other way around.
3 Likes
I totally agree and would like to add some up size that all this. Revenue shares would be given out in stablecoin and planned to be claimed on all networks that Abracadabra is on. Plus spell would also be capped and all emissions would be eliminated so there be no more selling pressure but buying pressure
Aside from the fact that it may or may not be a good idea, I got the impression that there is just too much going on in such a short period of time. Let’s take a step back now that we’ve switched to wMEMO 
I want the option to get allll my loses back cause it’s only fair right?? We aren’t responsible for our money, they are and they should have made us alot of money with no risk at all. High reward no risk that’s what was supposed to happen.
This is so unfair we don’t get all our money back. We should also get all spell holders money too on top of all the fees from spell.
We were told we would make 50 million in 1 year. So we should get at least wmemo at 250,000 and a free 10k fot everyone troubles. On top of the spell tokens and the fees they got from liquid cause we assume no responsibility for our money. When you invest your life savings i expect a guarantee that I’ll never lose any money and I’ll be rich in 1 year. SCAM
Easy frog it’s a vote not not a headhunt
1 Like
A step back while the treasury keeps getting drained? Soon it won’t be one lol this decision has to be made sooner than later
- If really our treasury is making 1 Million per day, why merge.
- Also, why are performing buybacks and wasting treasury that can be used to generate more revenue
- If the treasury revenue is real, then stop the buybacks and just start doing the revenue share to people who stake wmemo - revenue share only if you stake for minimum amount of time and the longer you stake the higher percentage of revenue, this will avoid sells ?
How is the buybacks beneficial anyways if we are shifting to a revenue share model? This does not make sense. Unless we are propping up the value to support liquidation prices for someone or t show better pricing for merger(which again should not be based on mcap but earning potential)
-
The benefits of the merger are not clear. What is the revenue that SPELL is making today? And what will it make with the merger, will it benefit Wonderland or SPELL holders ? The swap ratio should be based on revenue being generated rather than token value or mcap?
-
Also, lot of confusion on Team share of the tokens, how will the 5% share to the team translate when you swap to SPELL?
In conclusion, we need more details on current financials and also future projections to take a better decision. If the merger would help everyone equally and ensure better returns to everyone involved then a thumping YES else NO
2 Likes
So I’m new to crypto in general, and after listening to the AMA it seems like a lot of the problems have come from the backing price. As someone new to crypto, this is something that drew me in because I always felt like there was somewhat of a safety net.
However, I feel like this concept of the backing price has led to a false sense of security, especially when tapping into one’s wMemo collateral on Abracadabra. With this in mind and after reading the proposal, I think further discussion needs to happen because I for one do not believe that it is necessary to merge both entities.
Especially when we are on the verge of beginning revenue share, which is the true value of Wonderland. I believe going forward it would be more beneficial to remove the backing and let the market decide the price. That being said, there should be a window of opportunity for those currently borrowing on their wMemo collateral to pay this back at the backing price so that we can start on the new chapter “fresh” so to speak.
I like the idea of continuing to display the value of each wMemo in terms of Treasury Assets but rebranding this as something other than the backing price. Also, going forward can use the metric currently known as “backing price” as a benchmark for revenue share.
For example, if the price of wMemo drops back down to $21,000 or even lower; then the profit potential of revenue share will bring buyers back into the market given the previous estimates provided by Sifu of approximately $2,000/month per wMemo. Given that revenue share is isolated from wMemo price action, buying wMemo at a discounted price magnifies profit potential.
This is what I have come up with as a baseline over the last few hours as possible ways forward without merging both entities. I feel like wMemo holders would be selling themselves short by migrating over to Spell before we begin to realize our true earning potential.
This has always been a long term play, but the use of the rebase model, while effective at building the treasury, has led to widespread confusion among the community as to where the true value of holding wMemo lies.
I know that I am nobody of any importance in this space, but I stand by my ideas and truly hope that they are given some consideration.
2 Likes
he has a fair point and a realistic view: 30% to the team is also ridiculous maybe 5% another thing is spell dilution to add to the slap were getting
Fair market value is difficult to establish but if enough holders want to exist it well be around backing price. However, if the release of the treasury audit. helps to still fud and wmemo price recovers organically then it would be in a much stronger place to ask for100k per wm. I dont think they want to do that tho. We have to be realistic and see whos asking us to merge its our own leaders project manipulation at this point.
This is actually very good!
Many of the gamblers are screaming what for the ath buyers etc. - much better question imo is how will the since day 1 hodlers be treated? Day 1 I mean September and not November etc.
If someone holds since the beginning, there is no better proof of faith in the project. Exactly those should be considered the most. Not only the 90% price drop but also the accumulated rebases which amount to a minus x9 or even more since september, we have persevered!
By the way: still holding and as said, never sold a penny until now.
2 Likes