You have my support too. This is very fair way of including everyone in the DAO votes.
We might need to consider that this adds a total of 10000x100 = 1,000,000 GHST voting power into the system, but considering it being 2% of the supply it shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
I support this idea 100%. Many people who have been long time supporters of the project have shown their support by spending all of their GHST on Portals, Aavegotchis, Wearables, etc. These are the folks who are continuing to support the ecosystem by actively playing the game.
Without having an effective system in place to vote with your Aavegotchi’s, the votes might be skewed towards people who have no interest in actually playing the game.
I’m not sure if wearables should be counted, but if they are the voting power should either stay in line with the Maal prices, or it could be in line with the +BRS of the underlying item (would give less voting power for wearables)
Considering a substantial amount of GHST has been spent on Wearables for the Haunt 1 (and future Haunts) Gotchis, it seems prudent for these items to have Voting power.
This Proposal is to 1) determine if Wearables should have voting power, and 2) determine what that voting power should be.
So my proposal is: Should Wearables have voting power? (Yes/No)
No, nothing further needs to be done.
If Yes, how do we value it?
a. Original Baazaar list price?
b. A running 60/90-day average selling price of that specific item?
c. [Other Ideas]
I feel the current proposal for Haunt 2 would be substantially different if the people that have spent a lot of money on wearables for their gotchis could vote with that GHST. Let’s open the discussion to this topic as it’s definitely something that needs to be considered in the future, if not now.
how do you propose to measure what people have spent on wearables? seems a bit complicated.
It’s directly tied to the Wearables they have equipped or in their inventory. Should be easy to calculate since it’s all on-chain.
I like the original bazaar price to keep it simple. Also because low rarity items dont appreciate much in price so those ppl will get more voting power compared to godlikes which went up at least 2-3X
That’s a fair assertion. The original list price (or what would’ve been the list price of said item assuming it derived from a Raffle Drop), is probably the most fair and balanced way to value it.
I’d love to hear other suggestions as well.
no no no you already gonna sell them if you don’t need them. otherwise they improve the rarity
Original list price is the best way to do this, otherwise you can have people abusing the system by selling their items to themselves at insanely high markups.
I disagree with this. Wearables are either won in raffles, or payed for in a marketplace.
You could theoretically add a universal “voting power” for each rarity (common = 1, rare = 2 etc…), but to come to an actual voting power of a wearable will lead to manipulation.
What stops me from buying a wearable at 100k from myself, and then benefit from the voting right?
ahh, i see… cool idea!
hey, I combined your thread with this one, since you all are discussing the same topic.
outside of a few highly collectible (ie not so easy to let go of consumables) potions, Kinship and XP are the two Aavegotchi metadata most tied to activity instead of $$$. I think an Aavegotchi voting power that’s strongly influenced by these two would be the most interesting.
On the other side, it’s also an interesting opportunity to consider Spirit Force. Should we further encourage savings by adding some vote boosting effect for depositing more maTokens beyond various thresholds? Maybe nothing game changing, not too OP, but yet another trait to consider nonetheless.
Yeah I don’t think we should give any functional advantage to people with more Spirit Force. But maybe something like a non-transferrable background for different tiers ($10-$100-$1000 or something like that) would be cool.
I think that a quadratic vote isn’t a good idea. It is against a fair game and improves the plutocracy of the whales.
If I own 1 GHST and a whale has 1000 GHST, suppose that the community (DAO) is made only of me and him, my vote will have a weight of 1/1001 (1000+1 GHST in total). This can be if we accept the 1 GHST = 1 vote.
If the vote is quadratic then if I have 1 GHST 1^2 = 1, 1 GHST weight, and the whale vote will have a weight of 1000^2 = 1.000.000 GHST weight.
So in this case my opinion will count only 1/1.000.001, far less than before.
Definitely a sort of logarithmic vote mechanism could be the answer.
Maintaining the same amount of GHST the vote power of the whale will be log(1000), which is less than 1000. Obviously with a base 10 logarithm we have problem, but suppose to use the proper base.
I continue to advocate for two tier voting, specifically voting by Gotchi holdings for DAO decisions pertaining to game play. Although they have a financial advantage, GHST high asset participants don’t disproportionately overweight the class of Gotchi asset holders.
Based on a 3/19/2021 analysis of Gotchi holdings:
There is little risk of plutocratic decision making with voting based on Gotchi holdings. I think trying to transform Gotchi holdings into an equivalent GHST value for the purpose of voting with the GHST class will always be problematic because of changing market conditions. BRS value, on the other hand, is driven totally by game participation.
I think the simplest way to weight Gotchi class voting is by BRS value (or equivalent) of all “engaged” ERC721 and ERC1155 assets. By this I mean summoned Gotchis, claimed and owned wearables/consumables, and the highest BRS valued Gotchi in opened portals. Wearables and consumables would be counted by the integer value of their “stats” regardless of type: NRG, BRN, AGG, SPK, EYS, EYC, and Kinship value and XP for consumables. The only bonus scaler would be the experience level of a Gotchi based on the formula
Final Gotchi vote weight = BRS * ( 1+ ( INT(Level/3) * .03) )
This Level bonus would only apply to Gotchis, not unequipped wearables or consumables. Using the Level as an adjustment would reward long term commitment to Aavegotchi. For example, the final voting weight of Gotchi with a BRS of 495 (including all wearables) at Level 20 would calculate as
Voting weight = 495 * ( 1+ (INT(20/3) .03) = 495 * (1 + INT(6.66) .03) = 495 * (1 + 0.18) = 584.1
Based on the above formula, the BRS value of a Gotchi at Level 99 would be multiplied by 1.99 to determine its final voting weight.
I’m not clear yet how to value unopened portals for Gotchi class voting. My initial inclination was to put them in the GHST voting class and count them at 100 GHST per unopened portal. Not sure that is a fair way to handle unopened portal voting interests for decisions involving new Haunts. There might be way to assign a BRS value to unopened portals.
GHST class voting would prevail for financial actions like the bonding curve, reserve ratio, Eco System and Team funds, Treasury tap, GHST burning, etc., weighted by GHST. Again, Haunt decisions are tricky. GHST holdings should probably have some influence on Haunt decisions so long as BRS valued Gotchi holdings are overweighted. I tried to decompose the Haunt into financial and non-financial aspects from a voting perspective, to divide Haunt parameters between voting classes, but without much success.
This is a work in progress. Please comment, tear it apart, whatever your think might make it better.
p.s. With regard to GHST class voting, I find quadratic voting appealing. It isn’t perfect. Without identity management, for instance, there are ways to game DAO voting, like spreading GHST across multiple wallets to “harvest” a larger number of cheaper votes. The double square root voting system, a quadratic system which also dynamically adjusts the quota for a vote to pass as a function of vote weight distribution, disincentivizes many forms of vote manipulation even without voter identity (for a good write-up see In praise of the double square root voting system for blockchain governance | Hacker Noon. Make sure that you check out the embedded Double Square Root Voting Quota Calculator spreadsheet).
A quadratic voting scheme increases the “cost” to vote quadratically, i.e., by the square of the number of voting units. So if a 1 vote costs 1 GHST then
Voting weight decreases as the square root of total voting tokens. As example, lets take a population of 10 where 20% of the population controls 75% of the voting tokens:
No. Tokens
50
25
10
7
3
1
1
1
1
1
The “one token one vote” system allocates 75 votes to the top 2 token holders and 25 votes to the remaining 8 token holders.
A quadratic allocation, based on the sum of the square of tokens, would allocate voting as follows:
Cast Votes
7.07
5.00
3.16
2.65
1.73
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Under the quadratic scheme, the top two token holders have 12.07 votes while the bottom 8 token holders have 12.54 votes.
Quadratic voting is most effective when there is a slate of competing options to be voted on and the voters must allocate their voting power across the slate based on which options are most important; the voter must make tradeoff choices to allocate voting “power” according to the degree of interest in and commitment to desired options. But even for simple binary choice voting situations quadratic voting significantly diminishes “tyranny of majority” plutocratic outcomes.
Ok I’ve think about quadratic vote in a wrong way if this one is the current schema 
Just saw these all combined. To me it’s the best one yet.
Its logical, simple, and can be measured in a straight forward easy to understand manner.
Not only does it reward early adopters, it measures everyone the same, rewards everyone the same.
I also think this adds to the data backing the actual market value for a gotchi.
I like this idea most. 
I’m interested in this idea, hope it garners more attention and it meets the quorum.