Alternative proposal to close GHST bonding curve and how to allocate collateral

Proposals by Gotchi Gov'nuhs
1

In the beginning, our DAO consisted of GHST holders only. With AGIP8, AGIP9, and AGIP17, we decided to expand that definition to include Gotchis, wearables, and parcels.

GotchiGang has supported the growth of the Aavegotchi ecosystem with 8 figures worth of DAI (USD); buying GHST, diamond handing assets. We’ve been through thick and thin together.

Throughout this whole time, we have come to rely on the inertia provided by the bonding curve. By shutting down the curve, we expose Gotchi asset holders to great risk. GHST could dump hard, hurting GHST holders. Or GHST could pump hard, hurting Gotchi NFT holders looking to swap back to GHST. Once we decide to shut down the curve, we could see many DAO members desperately trying to rebalance their portfolios in preparation of this event, leading to even more volatility and FUD.

However, shutting down the bonding curve could also be a great opportunity to give back to our loyal community without pitting them against each other in some leaderboard. We’re all one DAO.

Hence, we propose to distribute the DAI based on overall VP. Currently the total VP is roughly 60M (according to AavegotchiDAO Treasury Balance), while the bonding curve DAI is roughly 20M. So every DAO member would receive about 33% of their VP in stablecoins, depending how collateral is distributed. We think that 20% of treasure is appropriate to allocate for liquidity, as deep liquidity is gone without curve.

On top of rewarding DAO members for their financial support, and their faith in the project, this distribution model is also likely to support prices, and could even cause a run on gotchi assets. E.g. at the time of writing, there are spacious parcels with 1028 GHST of VP on the baazaar for about 360 GHST. So at current prices, they would be almost free if this proposal were to pass. These arbitrage and discount opportunities will likely see the curve’s stablecoin reserves increase significantly. A great marketing opportunity.

However, how would we accomplish this?

The next part of the proposal is one possible solution. However, this proposal is not dependent on our suggested solution. We could use any other means for distribution.

For Gotchi NFTs we propose airdropping the stablecoins in the holders wallet. For GHST however, we’d need a different process.

GotchiGang produced over 2 years worth of articles, blog-posts, tweets, messages, advertisments, podcasts, spaces, streams, and youtube videos linking GHST to the Bonding Curve. All of this will be invalidated once the curve is shut down. In essence, GHST will no longer be GHST.

Hence, we propose to fill a contract on Polygon with the remaining stablecoins. The contract would allow a user to swap their GHST for GHST unchained (or GHST-light, or GHST2, or whatever we wanna call it) plus stablecoins. This would put DAO members in control of the timing of when they’d receive their stablecoins (which could be important for tax purposes).

The DAO has large GHST reserves and will hence receive a large chunk of the stablecoins. Some of it could be used to provide liquidity for GHST2. If the DAO feels like more liquidity is needed, we could ear-mark some of the curve’s DAI to be used for LP purposes and only distribute the remaining funds in the manner outlined above.

PC also has large GHST reserves and owns Gotchi assets as well. So they too would receive a large chunk of the stablecoins, ensuring their financial stability for the coming months while also providing a little more pressure than a never-ending tap or 40% of the entire DAI reserves.

We strongly feel that this is the most appropriate way to distribute the curve’s stablecoins in case of a shut-down.

  1. It balances the high risk Gotchi-asset owners face when the curve is shut down.
  2. It distributes funds fairly, based on how much skin people have in the game.
  3. Distributing 20M to asset holders is also a great marketing that will likely see new users buying in before the curve is shut down.
  4. Instead of FUD and despair over a curve shutdown that sees long term holders trying to sell, we could trigger a gotchiwide bull run. Such a bull run might cause a strong appetite for GHST, maybe even doubling the DAI in the curve before it shuts down.

Total VP estimation:
All GHST in existence: 45,429,036
All Gotchis: 3,825,528 (source: AavegotchiDAO Treasury Balance)
All Items: 4,137,500 (source: AavegotchiDAO Treasury Balance)
All parcels: 6,200,800 (source: subgraph)
Total VP: 59,592,864 (edited)

PC proposal is 20% Liquidity / 40% Dao treasury / 40% Pixelcraft
Our proposal is 20% Liquidity / 80% to VP holders.

Proposal was put together by me and CryptoGotchi#9089, lets discuss the merits of this proposal.

5 Likes
2

The most redeeming factor of the bonding curve is that it served to build up a treasury war chest. This proposal completely throws away that opportunity and depletes the treasury. This sort of proposal is what I would expect if Pixelcraft and/or the DAO wanted to call it quits and walk away.

We are the flagship game in the fastest-growing crypto sector on the hottest blockchain. It’s time to invest in ourselves and strategically deploy our treasury - not give it all back and walk away.

7 Likes
3

Thank you for proposing an alternative that thinks of asset holders fren!

I’d like to toss in my own suggestion:

25% liquidity / 25% DAO / 25% Pixelcraft (over two years, with deliverables) / 25% RF (over 6 seasons/two years, with new categories beyond BRS and added dynamism )

I think this more fairly distributes the different needs of the ecosystem and the people and teams behind getting us to this point.

Asset holders are not only downbad, they continue to spend time and energy on this project for free.
It’s great to think of PC and the buildoors and reward them handsomely for their involvement in the project - but some of us i.e. asset holders continue to give our time, money , energy etc. and it continues to be assumed that our only role is to spend more into eternity. I can’t believe millions are being allocated while once again people say RF needs to end, that we can’t afford it, etc.

Finally, long term sustainability of RF leads to long term sustainability of the PRODUCT itself.

it surprises me how often some participants want to build the success of this platform while neglecting the central product. This shouldn’t be a rush to the gates to sell your assets to catch the spike in GHST, and then what?

If the OP proposal is a cash-out, so is the original Pixelcraft proposal (with different beneficiaries)

That’s why I proposed a more balanced 25% split with distributions across 2 years- we can use this war chest to sustain the platform with a very solid base into the future. Whether you’re a DAO contributor, or Pixelcraft, or simply a gotchi owner, you can feel this distribution has taken care of your needs equitably with a long term vision.

Much better than chasing volatile GHST spikes while ridiculing asset owners for “not DYOR”.

7 Likes
4

I think it’s probably a good idea to distribute some % to holders… but I would think that giving that much would just cause too much chaos in markets and bring a lot of uncertainty about the future, and possibly even put the whole future of the project in jeopardy.

5

This is best proposal I’ve seen so far, think of the 25% RF as “Protocol Rewards Pool”. We have a Gotchiverse rewards pool so why not for protocol?

Also, I would like to see some liquidity rewards go back into RF as well, this makes it even more sustainable.

2 Likes
6

I think we need 2x from proposed for liquidity, because otherwise we are cutting it -80% which is bad for everybody entering or exiting our assets! Also LP can be smart… we can long coins for future treasury growth, and use fiat to secure the development!

My proposal:

40% LP (locked for 2 years, 80% ETH 20% MATIC)
40% DAO (2 years development fund, 100% DAI/USDC)
20% PixelCraft

1 Like
7

Do correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like this proposal aims to airdrop the majority of the DAICO treasury we’ve been accumulating to develop the protocol, directly to asset holders?

This seems insane to me, and here’s why.

From your own calculations, GHST holders have 75% of the current voting power. So you’re saying that 75% of the DAI in the bonding curve will go to GHST holders when the curve turns off.

What this will do is invite a bunch of airdrop hunters to come into this community, buy up a ton of GHST, and dump it immediately after the bonding curve closes, when our liquidity is at its weakest. Sounds like a recipe for absolute disaster of this ecosystem, and exactly what we want to prevent.

This % will be minimized when airdrop hunters hear about this opportunity and buy a ton of GHST from the curve. Unlike assets, which have a fixed cap, GHST currently has no cap, and will continue printing new VP (which dilutes existing VP) until it is turned off.

You should say airdrop hunters because that’s what many of them will be.

A large portion of this DAI will go to airdrop hunters who have 0 loyalty to this community and dgaf about the health of our ecosystem .

We’ve seen myriad times how an airdrop can destroy a community. I see no reason to bring this energy into what should be one of the most exciting events in this community’s history.

If this proposal were to pass, in my opinion it would be an extremely sad day for this project.

5 Likes
8

I strongly agree that DAO should be very calculative about sending liquidity to anybody. It is our dry powder.

And sending a liquidity to VP is a suicide mission for the DAO

4 Likes
9

Beyond the problems mentioned above, this proposal also references “GHST light” or “GHST2” seemingly a migration from GHST to a new token. GHST is already listed on numerous exchanges, has good liquidity on Quickswap, and listing on DeFi platforms like AAVE. A rare feat for gaming/governance tokens. Migrating to an entirely new token (ala LEND to AAVE back in the day) is a high stakes reset that should be a non-starter.

The original proposal offers a well defined scope that reinvests value back into GHST token holders: it free’s up our community to apply DAI strategically on holders’ behalf while also derisking GHST’s reliance on MakerDAO. Meanwhile, this proposal aims to completely redistribute our community’s war chest and simultaneously kill GHST only to replace it with some new token on a new contract. Good luck starting over and getting it listed anywhere.

In short, this alternative proposal is, as best, a good mental exercise but introduces far more risks than it removes.

2 Likes
10

I agree. Our game tokens have a 30 year supply schedule iirc. It’s far too soon for us to consider cashing out. We can move mountains with that 25% - $2 mil if my math is right. The next bull run is somewhere on the horizon and crypto gaming will likely be a big part of that. The more we buckle down and work now the greater we will all be rewarded in the not too distant future.

2 Likes
11

this idea doesn’t do anything to keep leveraging the current token network as far as listings and integrations. it doesn’t leverage the dao funds for holders, it just gives them an airdrop. its a sexy idea to imagine cashing out everyone and likely would lead to an ecosystem sugar rush. but the come down from a sugar rush isn’t sexy at all.

doesn’t get my vote.

3 Likes
12

Totally agree. We should invest in the DAO and PC, not plunder the bonding curve treasury.

3 Likes
13

I hope this little gem of an idea doesn’t get lost in the shuffle. In theory, the DAO could do this with some portion of its cut of the curve DAI, but specifically protecting some funds for RF to give the DAO runway to build revenue streams necessary for RF sustainability is a great thought.

It would also help set a foundational framework so that we don’t need to spend energy arguing over allocating DAO funds to RF vs protocol development in the future.

6 Likes
14

A lot can happen over the course of 2 years. I don´t think it´s wise to give us such a rigid framework with the proposed RF rewards. The DAO should stay flexible regarding investing its treasury.

1 Like
15

Big treasury could lead to tresuary corruption, but ok, I understand you want majority to development, and i can get behind it.

While my idea is extreme in one way, PC idea is extreme in other way. What is your proposal to allocate DAI? Do you agree to just give 40% to PC with no deliverebles?

1 Like
16

Yes, more balanced split is much better and i like your split a lot.

What I do not like is 25% for RF. We need to come up with sustainable model for RF…this is just kicking can down the street.

I absolutelly agree, that PC should have the pie, but only if they deliver promises.

1 Like
17

Yeah,

I think we must be very considered how is DAI split. We should vote on every aspect of DAI split.

First vote to leave the curve
Than vote for percent split

18

Indeed mental excersive.

I wouldnt call asking for 40% without deliverables “well defined” scope. Also taking part of DAI offchain, for rainy day, triggered a lot of negative sentiment. Our protocol is onchain, if things get so fucked up, we cannot use onchain funds, its over anyway.

I agree with GHST.

2 Likes
19

With big treasury comes corruption. We voted in RF5 with sentiment, “it doesnt matter, we big treasury”. If funds would be used for development I am ok with it.

What is your idea for a split?

20

Its never insane to reward participants in WEB3. You acting, like we are stealing your money, when in reality its property all of us.

You created this gem of an protocol. You need to realise frustration that some of community members feel. Everybody loves PC, but requesting 40% of DAICO without deliverables (and taking some offchain) is too much of pill to swallow.

What needs to be fixed, and get all the DAI:

  • Lack of gameplay shipping, little reason to be in the metaverse
  • Launched 5 tokens with little sinks, introduced very few sinks (Decorations and tiles, Location marketing, Fakegotchis)
  • Land for over 15 months very little utility
  • PC wanting 40% of the BC DAI - this is after getting 1.75M DAI tokenswap from the DAO
  • PC retain Aavegotchi IP (DAO has no IP)
  • Unfinished / lackluster roadmap with no timelines / moving goal posts
  • No Gotchi Bible on Liquidators/The Great Battle. Why we dont know, what is Great Battle?
  • Massive delays to V2
  • No quarterly targets for Gotchiverse features like guild channeling, quests, dungeons, estates, gotchi lodges
  • Buy Offers not released in Bazzar, while it was voted long time ago.
  • Unsustainable rarity farming. Season 5 pushed after we were supposed to replenish the rewards from season 4.
1 Like