definitely those transactions belongs to the blockchains and are visible to everybody.
The team should provide us the real entity of the treasury, because we have no access on that without doing a proper investigation on the cash out during liquidation. What I know there must be missing at least what it is described here:
“The news of Dhanani sending millions to Tornado cash was spread on twitter shortly after the transactions posted.”
"Dhanani split the 2,000 Eth in 100Eth transactions and sent 20 separate transactions to Tornado Cash.
The speculation is that Dhanani is laundering this money through Tornado Cash in order to make it untraceable. Once he withdraws it into different wallets, it would be very hard for anyone to claw back."
The argument about requesting the initial investment back is an option of Rage Quit.
If moderator approve that this proposal have gain enough discussion and ready for a WIP, then I can help to draft and post the Snapshot voting proposal reasoning.
Can you frame then a bit better, maybe in a list of results/benefits what’s in your proposal, and how (method) you are going to make it work?
Because if something good come out of this, we never know what it can be turned in. To be honest “frogs” are not so evolved either. Happy to relax with some other exciting investments.
You did not read what I wrote at all.
Its about including a safe rage-quit since everyone is divided. Its an option to the already existing proposal.
Allow me to clarify;
There is a jar of cookies with 8 cookies. There are 30 kids who all want a cookie. Instead of splitting the cookies, the 30 kids work together to bake more cookies for everyone. Simple.
My proposal was NOT POLITICAL if you had actually read what I was saying
Are you referring to RAGE-quit? SO you advise to sell wMEMO and than we have to give a try to regain the losses with AVAX?
You don’t describe at all how to “generate” these new cookies:
HOW
WHEN
WHO
Buying AVAX? So you are relying in a price increase at least at its ATH?
So this is using the same pool with the same “people” that created the problem at the first place. This is a trust we don’t feel to give, sorry.
Explain better for the rest of us.
Because besides exchanging wMEMO with MIM, there are no other token available on the only exchange available. So we are stucked
Then there are other stables in their like USDT and USDC
THAT is where we would allocate from. To increase the value of the treasury by providing addition yield that otherwise is “stable”. Again, look at avax now. If we had taken a break from the politics and used our treasury to generate more money, then people start to feel more secure about others leaving the project.
If Avax hits even $90, then if my proposal was actually paid attention to, then in that week that I had proposed this, we would have increased our yield on that investment by 27%. $20,000,000+27%= $25,400,000.
We would have generated another 5million in to the protocol that otherwise wouldn’t be there because our tokens are STABLE. I’m not talking about using ALL of our stable tokens, just 1/5 of the amount that Dani had sold FROM AVAX TO BEGIN WITH and reallocating it back in.
$5,400,000 in a week.
Now that sounds like a reasonable amount to start considering the rage-quit option more seriously.
But perhaps I’ll just shelf this for when all of this blows over.
Don’t think we should resort to this socialist economy proposal…Crypto forever has been Capitalist. All you need is time to recover from the lows. Let’s not resort to rage quit.
This proposal makes no sense, how would they track “original investment”, just ask people what their original investment was? They can’t tie wallets back to identities…
This whole proposal is stupid, makes no sense and is a terrible idea.
Who proposed this clearly has no clue on how to do basic math. At the moment, there is not enough money in the treasury to return the initial investment to all the holders.
This case is nothing to do with ideology. We should examine the quitters claims and arguments and come up with a cost-effective settlement ASAP, so that true believers and winners can stay to revive Wonderland.
The quitters’ arguments and claims:
The founder and development team admitted that this OHM Fork Wonderland project was an experiment failure because the original purpose of the project was mainly for fund raising. The high APY was designed as a gamification to attract investors to build the treasury not sustainable long-term.
The broken trust among holders ensued from the liquidation scandal, a failed merger proposal, the Sifu Gate scandal and the hopeless promises from Wonderland team.
Many long-term holders claimed that Wonderland treasury was derived from their initial investment but Wonderland project no longer can fulfill its original promise which was simply a gamification for falsely infeasible hope.
The quitters’ claims are legit, we just need to come up with a Cost-effective approach to settle the indignation.
