# Alternative proposal to close GHST bonding curve and how to allocate collateral **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposals by Gotchi Gov'nuhs\ **Created:** [February 7, 2023, 7:03pm UTC](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/t/alternative-proposal-to-close-ghst-bonding-curve-and-how-to-allocate-collateral/4660 "2023-02-07T19:03:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![reset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@reset](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/u/reset)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2023, 8:10pm UTC](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/t/alternative-proposal-to-close-ghst-bonding-curve-and-how-to-allocate-collateral/4660/21 "2023-02-08T20:10:10Z")
> [@Rikige](#): > > 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 That is already the case: ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/aavegotchi/original/2X/f/fd463d271085b00f35e2c9fbc7a8a4171b726061.png) ---
**Author:** ![reset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@reset](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/u/reset)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2023, 8:12pm UTC](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/t/alternative-proposal-to-close-ghst-bonding-curve-and-how-to-allocate-collateral/4660/22 "2023-02-08T20:12:39Z")
> [@Rikige](#): > > 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. People gonna hate me for saying this. But DAO has less of a plan for their 40% so far. ---
**Author:** ![reset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@reset](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/u/reset)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2023, 8:19pm UTC](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/t/alternative-proposal-to-close-ghst-bonding-curve-and-how-to-allocate-collateral/4660/23 "2023-02-08T20:19:10Z")
> [@Rikige](#): > > 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. They requested 40%, but also promised to deliver with 0% ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/aavegotchi/original/2X/f/fbb944589c677ef90a7c7d73dc75ec1e77581102.png) > [@Addressing the Comments and Concerns about Pixelcraft Finances and usage of DAI Collateral](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/t/addressing-the-comments-and-concerns-about-pixelcraft-finances-and-usage-of-dai-collateral/4641): > > Introduction For the last three years, the GHST bonding curve has served as an anchor of stability in the Aavegotchi ecosystem – financially, mentally, and even spiritually. When we launched the DAI-backed GHST bonding curve in 2020, the future of MakerDAO and DAI was bright – a decentralized USD-pegged stablecoin run by a DAO. The parallels between MakerDAO and what we aimed to achieve with AavegotchiDAO were striking. Fast forward to today, and the future for MakerDAO and DAI seem… ---
**Author:** ![JG1](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/dao.aavegotchi.com/jg1/32/1200_2.png) [@JG1](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/u/JG1)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2023, 9:47pm UTC](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/t/alternative-proposal-to-close-ghst-bonding-curve-and-how-to-allocate-collateral/4660/24 "2023-02-08T21:47:45Z")
> [@MikeyJay](#): > > 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. Thank you fren! Appreciate how well you have perceived the advantages in this idea. I don’t want to sabotage or diminish the intent of the original post, so I’m going to start a separate and detailed thread on it soon. Just want to mention that additional to the advantages you already highlight, I had envisioned the RF portion to be held in GHST. I appreciate the effort to rally the community behind the GHST token, so if we have a rewards pool for the assets that is stored/denominated in GHST, the NFTs will be seen as further correlated to the token’s momentum than if the rewards were to be held in DAI. You can then further imagine that right after curve shutdown, this 25% portion of the DAI would stand available to other areas/parties (such as Pixelcraft or the DAO treasury) to swap it for GHST (which then is held for protocol rewards over 2 years). ---
**Author:** ![Janbao](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/dao.aavegotchi.com/janbao/32/1419_2.png) [@Janbao](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/u/Janbao)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2023, 2:43pm UTC](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/t/alternative-proposal-to-close-ghst-bonding-curve-and-how-to-allocate-collateral/4660/25 "2023-02-10T14:43:22Z")
I would be fine with 20/40/40 (LP/DAO/PC) but would tend to adding more liquidity. 30/35/35. I also think RF should be sustainable in the sense that the RF pool should mainly consist of GHST generated through sales and trades. [Previous page](https://dao.aavegotchi.com/t/alternative-proposal-to-close-ghst-bonding-curve-and-how-to-allocate-collateral/4660.md?page=1)