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

That is already the case:


1 Like

People gonna hate me for saying this.

But DAO has less of a plan for their 40% so far.


They requested 40%, but also promised to deliver with 0%

1 Like

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).


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.