What about raffle wearables? Also godlikes are going for 40-50k+ GHST on the baazaar right now. Additionally some wearables are worth more than their brothers of the same rarity, for example the Sergey Beard. But yeah it’s the only option that’s realistic to be honest.
Yeah this is what I was thinking. It’s really the “base” price, everything else is speculative and hard to calculate properly.
Better than nothing I guess
But yeah seems like the only viable option.
The problem of considering the amount of GHST that a user has spent is this.
Suppose that now I own 1000 GHST and no gotchi, nor wearables and so on. I just own 1000 GHST.
Another user has spent 100 GHST to buy a portal and now he has listed it for 1000 GHST. 1000 GHST is cool for me so I buy the portal and summon the Aavegotchi.
If we consider the solution that proposes to consider the amount of GHST spent we will be in this situation:
- I own a gotchi worth (based on the sale price) 1000 GHST.
- The other users, who sold the portal now own 1000 GHST.
The total GHST circulation is 1000 GHST, but for the voting power is like the circulation is 2000 GHST.
So this solution is too simple to catch this problem…
We have to try again and find another better one
I think what Dan is proposing is just taking the base price of everything.
- Portal = 100 GHST
- Commons = 5 GHST
- Uncommons = 10 GHST
- Rare = 100 GHST
- Legendaries = 300 GHST
- Mythicals = 2’000 GHST
- Godlikes = 10’000 GHST
This still isn’t perfect because they’re being sold for much higher but it’s the only reliable metric we have.
I put this idea up on the DAO which didn’t didn’t really get any play: Cocoon (AavegotchiDAO 1.5) dual voting system. Maybe this proposal better captures the imagination. I think the trick is to balance Gotchi citizenship engagement with GHST investment. Those folks providing liquidity to the project, regardless of their summoned Gotchi holdings, have a right to vote on issues affecting GHST tokenomics. On matters pertaining to Gotchi gameplay and ecosystem expansion, including Haunts, one’s investment in Gotchis should take precedence.
Having formulae that attempt to convert Gotchi value into GHST for the purpose of voting could be problematic. As GHST value fluctuates on the crypto markets, and as Gotchi values fluctuate on the NFT market, trying to tweak the formulae to maintain some notion of equivalent voting weight between the two assets will get tricky. This is why I proposed that some classes of voting should be based on Gotchi holdings while others should be based on GHST holdings. Commitment to either asset supports the project but in different ways.
This makes the most sense. Giving voting power based on second market prices seems unnecessarily complicated. I think the additional voting power for wearables should be seen as a generous added bonus to your voting rights and shouldn’t be something needing crazy calculations for market rate averages etc.
Thats a great idea! Seems a bit unfair that people who dont have as much GHST, but have aavegotchi assets get less of a vote.
Keep in mind that doing this would in no way reduce criticisms of “whales” plutocracy. In fact, it may even exacerbate it because large buyers have deep pockets to buy wearables.
Another option is that voting with an Aavegotchi gives you 100 GHST, and also multiplies your voting power based on various factors like date of birth, kinship, and XP. As those are the most reliable factors we have of a player’s non-financial investment in the game. Sort of like quadratic voting, but based on your relationship to the Aavegotchi.
It`s a good idea! It will promote active and real users.
This solution is interesting, but at which options did you think about for voting with gotchis and for voting with GHST?
The idea is enable both GHST and Gotchi asset classes to have a voice in those areas that effect their investment and holdings.
GHST voting would focus on tokenomics issues:
The bonding curve
Treasury ratios and reserves
Dev team rewards
Financially related aspect of DAO governance
Gotchi voting would focus on game mechanics:
Haunts; portal distribution, costs
Gaming related aspects of DAO governance
I can imagine that some issues could crossover and therefore require a clever voting design. The idea is to avoid a plutocracy but acknowledge that without financial risk and rewards the Aavegotchi project cannot succeed.
p.s. Oh yeah, all real DAO voting should be binding. I do not like that folks can switch their votes on Snapshot. This invites all sorts of vote manipulation, especially for those with large asset holdings.
Ok, thanks for the clarification @cyberlmt
Divide the voting in 2 classes (and some decision in some case overlapped) can be a good solution for the community and the stakeolders.
Very good point about Snapshot votes. While our own DAO smart contracts are being built we’ll need to live with it, but I agree that for there to be confidence in the process, voting should be final.
The two-tiered system is a great idea! Keep thinking on it and continue to give us updates.
I agree with everything except the binding part. I think a lot of people do switch their votes based on what is happening and talked about. For example, I think a lot of ppl voted for 25k portals initial, but then the market reacted drastically by crashing at least 20-30%. Then some of those people might realize that there are such negative effects to current market and therefore switch their votes. Whether that was intentional idk, but I think its better for people to be able to switch when they have more info.
You serious ???
Whales plutocracy is on the way on the snapshot core vote like I said before
They decide for the first haunt for how many portals 25 per trx
and they gonna decide for the second…
I’m waiting for that but i’m gonna sell all my ghst if the vote is lame as the first one…
And not letting the tiny holder having an aavegotchi.
I didn’t have my portal for my birthday (the 2nd march) and I’ll have not a second deception.
The thing if we don’t have a quadratic vote, the vote will be plutocractic AF maybe dev have to make the choice for the community whether if aavegotchi gonna be a thing just for rich people or gonna be worldwide.
I didn’t remember that TAMAGOTCHI was just for whales…
maybe using : https://www.finance.vote/ ??
If you actually looked at the voting distribution, you would have noticed that most whales want a second haunt with 25k portals. Open portals are already going for 200-300 GHST on the baazaar right now, can’t go much lower than that. Crying about whales all the time is silly and won’t get this community anywhere.
We need quadratic vote that was the idea
The signaling proposals are the arena for discussion and persuasion. Folks can debate the merits and detriments of various ideas and I’m fine there if switching votes reflects community sentiment. But by the time a proposal comes to an actual DAO decision the votes should be binding, quadratic or otherwise.
What do you think about using the total amount of Base Rarity Score (BRS) from all your Gotchis x3 + adding the number of GHST as the voting power? Nevermind the unequipped or unused items, but only the equipped items matter since the BRS gets increased if you use them. Instead, you get incentives to sell or equip unused items, and the market will benefit from this. So if you have two Gotchis that together have 1.000 BRS and you also have 2.000 GHST in your wallet (staked or unstaked), you have a total of 5.000 in voting power (1.000 BRS x3, + 2.000). The voting formula would reward you with the amount of GHST you have spent on your gotchi, and also its equipped items reflect your total amount of voting power. Perhaps the multiplier (x3) could change to less or more to make it fairer for those who spent a lot of GHST on legendary items?. So to sum it up: (The total amount of Gotchi BRS x MULTIPLIER ) + the total amount of GHST = Voting power.